DWARKA RUBBER WORKS Vs. CHHOTELAL
LAWS(MPH)-1955-2-5
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on February 11,1955

Dwarka Rubber Works Appellant
VERSUS
CHHOTELAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.H. Khan, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff brought this suit on the allegations that the defendant entered into an agreement with him to supply goods worth Rs. 232 -8 -0 that the goods were supplied but because they were not according to the sample, they were returned to the defendant at Kanpore. The defendant gave him assurance that he would again supply goods according to sample but neither the goods were supplied, nor was the money refunded to him. The defence was that the Small Cause Court. Gwalior, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the plaintiff can only ask for the goods but not for the return of price, which the defendant had admittedly received. The trial Court decreed the suit against which the defendant has filed this revision.
(2.) THE only point pressed before me is of jurisdiction, regarding which it is contended that according to condition No. 5 of the contract to supply goods, it was agreed between the parties that all disputes between them would be settled at Kanpore and in the view of this agreement, the Kanpore Court alone has the jurisdiction to try the suit. The question for determination is whether the parties can be allowed to enter into an agreement that a suit, in respect of disputes arising between them out of a contract, shall be instituted in only one of the courts that may have jurisdiction to try the suit and not in other courts that may be equally competent to do so.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has cited - 'Musaji Lukman v. Durga Das', : AIR 1946 Lah 57 (FB) (A) and - Hoosen Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd', : AIR 1954 Mad 845 (B) in support of the preposition that such an agreement is valid. No doubt the view taken in the above cases is in favour of the applicant. It is based mainly on the interpretation of S. 28 Contract Act which runs as follows: Every agreement, by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void to that extent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.