9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the court to try the suit based on the agreement between the parties. Analysis: The plaintiff, an Industrial Development Corporation, filed a suit against the defendant firm for the recovery of money owed due to the supply of goods and losses incurred. The defendant contested the jurisdiction of the court at Keonjhar, claiming that the agreement between the parties stipulated that disputes would be settled in Calcutta. The court examined the purchase order and subsequent communications between the parties to determine the jurisdictional issue. The purchase order, Ext. C, contained a clause stating "All subject to Calcutta jurisdiction." However, the court held that this alone did not conclusively establish an agreement to confine dispute resolution to Calcutta. The court emphasized that ousting jurisdiction must be proven explicitly or by necessary implication. The defendant's reliance on Ext. C and B to support the agreement was deemed insufficient, as the plaintiff did not assent to the jurisdictional clause. The plaintiff's terms of business, Ext. A, specified that disputes would be resolved in Keonjhar, contradicting the defendant's claim of a Calcutta jurisdiction agreement. The court highlighted that the defendant's communication asserting Calcutta jurisdiction, Ext. B, lacked sufficient evidence of receipt by the plaintiff. The court scrutinized the evidence presented, including the certificate of posting and witness testimony, but found it inconclusive to establish the posting and receipt of Ext. B by the plaintiff. The court emphasized the importance of mentioning material facts in the written statement, which the defendant failed to do regarding the alleged letter. The absence of any mention of the letter or its effect in the written statement raised doubts about the credibility of the defendant's claim. Consequently, the court upheld the lower court's finding that there was no contract ousting the jurisdiction of the Keonjhar civil court, given the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the defendant's position. In conclusion, the court dismissed the civil revision challenging the jurisdiction of the Keonjhar court, as the plaintiff's terms of business and the lack of concrete evidence regarding the alleged jurisdictional agreement did not support the defendant's claim. The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Keonjhar civil court to try the suit, emphasizing the importance of explicit contractual terms in determining jurisdictional issues.
|
