Supreme Court: State Cannot Acquire Temple Property Through Gift Deed  ||  Supreme Court: HC Registry Should Exclude Court Vacations When Listing Cases After Fixed Days  ||  Supreme Court Flags Stark Non-Compliance With Directions on CAPF Cadre Review  ||  Supreme Court: Internet Access and Use is a Fundamental Right, Including for Children  ||  Supreme Court: Letters Patent Bench Cannot Interfere Merely Over Errors of Fact or Law  ||  Supreme Court: Voters May File Complaints Against Candidates over False Affidavits under RP Act  ||  Madras HC: Using Children in Campaign is Inappropriate but Does Not Invalidate Election  ||  Allahabad HC: Section 69 BNS Cannot Be Invoked by Transgender Woman in False Marriage Promise Case  ||  Delhi High Court Permits Britannia’s ‘No Added Sugar, Maida or Palm Oil’ Claim on Biscuit Packs  ||  Calcutta High Court Bars Deportation of Alleged Bangladeshi Woman until CAA Application is Decided    

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