NEW MOGA TRANSPORT COMPANY, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR KRISHANLAL JHANWAR versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

NEW MOGA TRANSPORT COMPANY, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR KRISHANLAL JHANWAR versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

When parties have agreed in clear terms that only a specific court among competent courts shall have jurisdiction (here, Udaipur), that agreement binds them. The court at Barnala, despite ordinarily having jurisdiction where cause of action arose, must return the plaint to be presented before the proper court at Udaipur, as chosen and specified in the consignment note.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: New Moga Transport Company, through its proprietor Krishanlal Jhanwar; Respondent/plaintiff No. 1: United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; Respondent/plaintiff No. 2: Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; judgment of First Appellate Court restored.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Civil Courts, Forum Selection Clauses, Exclusion of Jurisdiction by Agreement
Civil Procedure Contract Law Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Forum Selection Clauses Exclusion of Jurisdiction by Agreement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Moga Transport Company, through its proprietor Krishanlal Jhanwar

Appellant/defendant

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Respondent/plaintiff No. 1

Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd.

Respondent/plaintiff No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a forum selection clause in a consignment note validly restricts jurisdiction to a particular court when more than one court has jurisdiction under CPC.
  2. 2 Whether the civil court at Barnala had jurisdiction to try the suit or only Udaipur court as per the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

When parties have agreed in clear terms that only a specific court among competent courts shall have jurisdiction (here, Udaipur), that agreement binds them. The court at Barnala, despite ordinarily having jurisdiction where cause of action arose, must return the plaint to be presented before the proper court at Udaipur, as chosen and specified in the consignment note.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; judgment of First Appellate Court restored.

Orders

  • Court at Barnala shall return the plaint to plaintiff No. 1 with endorsement; plaintiff to present it before proper court at Udaipur within four weeks.
  • Limitation shall not be raised if re-presentation is made within four weeks; suit to be decided on merits by Udaipur court.