9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 1,50,000/- at a time instead of ₹ 1,00,000/-. The number of grounds have been raised challenging the order of the High Court but for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant has confined it to the question, whether on the facts and circumstances of the case it is the Court of Calcutta or the Court of Orissa which has the jurisdiction to decide the issues raised. In order to appreciate this we are hereby giving certain essential facts. Respondent obtained a bus on lease dated 14th August, 1977. The period of lease being 36 months on payment of monthly lease rental in 35 months. The said lease period came to an end on the 14th August, 2000. It is not in dispute that the Respondent defaulted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso raised as in view of a specific clause under the said agreement that only the Court at Calcutta will have jurisdiction to try and dispute arising out of this conflict. 4. The Civil Judge Bhubaneswar through its order dated 21st January, 1999 allowed the Respondent's application for repayment of outstanding installment to the Appellant within a month and pay the subsequent installment regularly as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and also directed for the release of the said vehicle after the outstanding dues are paid. As against this order of the trial Court the Appellant preferred an appeal and the District Judge through its order dated 11th March, 1999, allowed the appeal of the Appellant by setting aside the trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and unless this is settled, the parties will continue to litigate for long in the various Courts. So we took up the second point for consideration. We heard the counsel for the parties in this regard. The submission for the Appellant is strongly based on Clause 34 of the aforesaid agreement which is quoted herein:-- 34. Subject to the provisions of Clause 32 above it is expressly agreed by and between the parties herein above that any suit, application and or any other legal proceeding with regard to any matter, claims, differences and for disputes arising out of this agreement shall be filed and for referred to the Courts in Calcutta for the purpose of jurisdiction. 7. Clause 34 leaves no room of doubt that the parties expressly ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court alone to which they have so agreed. In the present case as we have said through Clause 34 of the agreement, the parties have bound themselves that any matter arising between them under the said contract, it is the Courts in Calcutta alone which will have jurisdiction. Once parties bound themselves as such it is not open for them to choose a different jurisdiction as in the present case by filing the suit at Bhubaneswar. Such a suit would be in violation of the said agreement. 9. For the said reasons we have no hesitation to hold that the suit filed by Respondent in the Civil Court at Bhubaneswar would not be valid, in view of the said agreement. 10. In Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. 1971 (3) SCR 314 : AIR 1971 SC 740, paras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
