(1.) In this revisional application, which is being heard as a contested one, a short point arises for our consideration as to whether a stipulation in a contract for carriage of goods to the effect that Bombay court alone would have jurisdiction in respect of claims with regard to goods entrusted for carriage would oust the iurisdiction. of the Alipore Court to entertain a suit for damages for non-delivery of such goods at the instance of an assignee of a consignment note, though such court has otherwise iurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(2.) According to the plaintiff/opposite party certain textile goods valued at Rs. 29,842.91 were delivered to the de-fondant company, a common carrier at their Pondicherry Office for carriage to Balanagar against 3 consignment notes. The defendant having failed to deliver the goods so entrusted to them, the plaintiff as the assignee of the consignment notes instituted Money Suit No. 20 of 1976. In the plaint, the claim was laid on 3 alternative grounds, namely. (1) damages on the ground of non-delivery of the goods so entrusted. (2) damages for breach of the contract for carriage and (3) damages for wrongful detention and/or conversion of such goods to their own use or purpose. The suit was instituted in the 1st Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore, 24 Par-ganas. It was claimed that Alipore court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the goods being deliverable at Batanagar within the jurisdiction of the said court, a part of the cause of action arose within the said jurisdiction.
(3.) The defendant in contesting the suit by filing a written statement raised an objection that the court of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot entertain the suit in view of Clause 17 of the contract for carriage printed on the reverse of the consignment note which provided that Bombay court alone will have jurisdiction in respect of all claims arising under the consignment or with regard to the goods entrusted for transport.