FRICK INDIA LTD Vs. SHARMA C S AND I F P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed against an order dated 6-2-1981 passed by the 1st Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Money Suit No. 70 of 1979.

(2.) The question for decision is : "Whether the suit is maintainable at Muzaffarpur?" 2. The answer must be given in the negative. There was an agreement dated 30th October, 1978 (Annexure-3) between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act. The defendant is a public company registered under the Companies Act. The agreement was to supply equipments for a cold storage and for erection of a cold storage at Muzaffarpur. In pursuance of the agreement, the defendant despatched machineries and other equipments of the cold storage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of breach of the agreement in the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur. As per cl.22 of the agreement, the place of the contract shall be Delhi and the suit shall not be instituted outside Delhi. It is relevant to quote cl.22 of the agreement which runs as follows : "The place of the contract shall be Delhi; all proceedings, including those in the Courts of law, shall not be instituted or commenced outside Delhi."

(3.) It appears that by the aforesaid agreement, the parties agreed that the place of the contract shall be at Delhi and the suit shall be instituted at Delhi. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit can be instituted either at Delhi or at Muzaffarpur. But if the parties agree by the agreement that the dispute between the parties shall be tried in one of such Courts, it is not contrary to public policy Such an agreement is not contrary to S. 28 Contract Act. In this connection the Supreme Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740 held as follows :