Calcutta HC Denies Abhishek Banerjee Immediate Relief in DJ Remark Voice Sample Case  ||  Bombay High Court Grants Bombay Group Relief in Vadilal Dispute Against Ahmedabad Group  ||  Kerala HC Orders Time-Bound Disposal of Prisoners' Remission Pleas, Mandates NALSA SOP Compliance  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Plea of Two Army Doctors Seeking NEET PG 2026 Exam Amid Eligibility Rule Challenge  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mother Cannot Consent to a Major Son's DNA Test During a Pending Matrimonial Case  ||  Bombay HC Rules on Whether Arrest is Illegal if Co-Accused Charge Sheet is Not Supplied Earlier  ||  Gujarat HC: State Cannot Indefinitely Reserve Private Land Without Acquisition or Plan Revision  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Complaints Without Disciplinary Action Cannot Affect a Judge's Seniority  ||  Delhi HC Upholds Selection of India's Dressage Team For the 2026 Asian Games  ||  MP High Court Orders State to Airlift Gas Pipeline Blast Victim to Ahmedabad For Treatment    

R.B.Saxena & Sons v. Mahindra Logistics Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (04 Oct 2016)

Agreement to confer exclusive jurisdiction on one of Courts to exclusion of other, neither forbidden by law nor against public policy

MANU/DE/2730/2016

Arbitration

Instant petition filed by Petitioner against Respondent, Mahindra Logistics Limited, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between parties arising out of contract dated 29th November 2014 which contains an arbitration clause (Article 22). In present case, registered office of Respondent is located in Mumbai although it has corporate office in Delhi. Agreement was entered into between them in Delhi. Under Article 19 of agreement, notice was to be served on Respondent at its registered office in Mumbai. Respondent states that it has only account in Mumbai and payments were disbursed to Petitioner from said account and payments were received by Petitioner from said account.

Very fact that, ouster clause is included in agreement between parties conveys their clear intention to exclude jurisdiction of Courts other than those mentioned in concerned clause. Conversely, if parties had intended that all Courts where cause of action or a part thereof had arisen would continue to have jurisdiction over dispute, exclusion clause would not have found a place in agreement between parties.

In present case, Courts both in Mumbai and in Delhi would have jurisdiction consequent upon a part of cause of action having arisen within jurisdiction of this Court. If parties have agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on one of those Courts, i.e., Courts at Mumbai to exclusion of other Courts, such clause is not void or hit by Section 23 of Contract Act as explained in A.B.C. Laminart and reaffirmed in Swastik Gases P. Limited. In that view of matter, this Court declined to entertain the present Petition while leaving it open to Petitioner to approach the Court in Mumbai for appropriate relief in accordance with law.

Relevant : Bharat Aluminium Inc. (BALCO) v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service Inc. 2012 (9) SCC 552, A.B.C. Laminart v. A.P. Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163, Swastik Gases P. Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited reported in (2013) 9 SCC 32, Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Tags : ARBITRATOR   APPOINTMENT   AGREEMENT   JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved