Judgment:
GA No.2638 of 2013 CS No.147 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction NIF ISPAT LTD.Versus V.S.P.STEEL PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 19th August, 2014.
Appearance: Mr.Soumabho Ghose, Adv.Ms.Priyanka Prasad, Adv.Mr.Jayjit Ganguly, Adv.Mr.Rudrajit Saha, Adv.The Court : The plaintiff has instituted this suit for realisation of price of goods sold and delivered.
The plaintiff refereed to various purchase orders/challans.
The plaintiff claims that substantial amount is due and payable on account of price of goods sold and delivered.
The defendant is seeking to resist the claim of the plaintiff on the technical ground that is to say this Court has no jurisdiction in view of the jurisdictional clause mentioned in each of the tax invoices/challans, Mr.Joyjit Ganguly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant, refers to the tax invoices which clearly mention that the subject-matter of the dispute can only be resolved by courts situated at Howrah.
The jurisdictional clause reads “Howrah jurisdiction only.” It is submitted by Mr.Ganguly that in view of the use of the word “only”, the jurisdiction of all other courts are excluded.
It is further submitted that the civil courts at Howrah are also otherwise having jurisdiction to try and determine the suit.
In ABC Laminart PVT.Ltd Vs.A.P.
Agencies, Salem reported at AIR1989SC1239the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider such jurisdictional clause and it is held in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 that use of expressions like “alone’, “only”, “exclusive” and the like may result in ouster of jurisdiction of other courts.
However, Mr.Soumava Ghosh, Advocate, led by Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate, submits that once the defendant has submitted to the jurisdiction and this Court does not lack inherent jurisdiction to try and determine the suit, the defendant cannot rely upon the jurisdictional clause mentioned in challans.
I think there is some force in the said argument.
The defendant filed the application on 29th June, 2012 seeking extension of time to file written statement.
application.
I have carefully gone through the averments made in the said The said application was not filed reserving any right to challenge the jurisdiction.
It cannot be said that the defendant has not submitted to the jurisdiction by filing application.
In affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Varun Patwari on 30th August, 2012 in paragraph 3B it is stated that the defendant has also taken out an application for extension of time to file a written statement and the defendant intends to contest the suit.
It is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction.
In view of the aforesaid, the ratio of ABC Laminart PVT.LTD.would not apply.
The defendant cannot take the benefit of the ouster clause as mentioned in the tax invoices.
The application, GA No.2638 of 2013, stands dismissed.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) B.Pal/kc.