(1) The substantial question of law i have to decide in this second appeal is whether the hyderabad court has jurisdiction to try the suit in question?
(2) The plaintiff is the appellant. He entrusted a consignment of hybrid bajra seeds to the defendant m/s. Savani transport (private) limited on 12/05/1970 under bill no. 4137 to be carried from kurnool to rajkot. Those two consignments were seized on 2/06/1970 by the sales tax authorities at hyderabad while in transit from kurnool to rajkot. The goods were detained in the godown of the defendants branch, the plaintiff complains that since was lost and thereby he had sustained a loss of rs. 4668 - 40. He failed the suit in the court of the iv asstt. Judge, city civil court, hyderabad. The defendant resisted the suit stating that the seizure was valid and in spite of repeated correspondence the plaintiff failed to take further steps for the onward transit of the consignment. The defendant denied that he had wilfully detained the goods. The defendant alleged that on account of the mistake committed by the plaintiff in not furnishing the necessary permit at the time of check, he had suffered loss on account of the detention of the lorry and other expenses. Finally, he contended that as per the contract as evidenced by the endorsement on the lorry receipt, the court at bombay alone had jurisdiction and the court at hyderabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(3) The trial court decreed the suit. It held that the court at hyderabad had jurisdiction the decree, the defendant field an appeal in the court of the additional chief judge, city civil court. The learned judge held that the court at hyderabad had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He did not go into the merits of the case. Consequently, he directed return of the plain to the plaintiff for presentation to proper court. Questioning that decree the defendant field an appeal in the court of the additional chief judge, city civil court. The learned judge held that the court at hyderabad had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He did not go into the merits of the case. Consequently, he directed return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to proper court. Questioning that decree the plaintiff has field this appeal.
(4) It is submitted by sri k. G. Kannabiram, learned counsel for the appellant that no part of cause of action has arisen at bombay, that the defendant had his branch office at hyderabad, that the goods were detained in the branch office and it is that they correspondent with the plaintiff with regard to the claim and in these circumstances, it is not correct to state that the court at hyderabad had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He further submitted that merely because the words "subject to bombay jurisdiction" are printed on the top of the way bill, it does not mean that the jurisdiction of the hyderabad court is excluded. In this connection he relied upon g. P. Venkataraju and co. V. P. Jagannadhan and co. (1974) 1 andh wr 427.
(5) I have seen the way bills exs. A - 4 and a - 5. At the top of the way bills the words "subject to bombay jurisdiction are printed in red ink. Clause 17 printed on the reverse of the way bill (ex. A - 4) reads as follows:
"this court in bombay state alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transport."
Clause17 printed on the reverse of ex. A - 5 reads as follows:
"the contract shall be deemed to have been entered into and made with the administrative and head office of the company at bombay."
(6) It is therefore expressly agreed that the courts in bombay alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment, or of the goods entrusted for transport
(7) It is not disputed that the head office of the defendant is at bombay. Under sec. 20 of the civil p. C. , a suit can be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Explanation ii to sec. 20, civil p. C. Says that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in india, or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.
(8) In view of sec. 20, civil p. C. It cannot be disputed that the plaintiff can file the suit, at bombay against the defendant. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions which it is unnecessary to refer that where there are two competent courts, which can deal with the subject matter of the litigation, it is open to parties to a contract to agree that the dispute in respect to agree that the despite in respect thereof should be adjudicated upon by one of the two competent courts and it is not contrary to section 28 of the contract /act; only the parties by agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on courts not possessed by it under the code. In this case, admittedly, bombay had jurisdiction to try the suit, because the defendant has his head office at bombay. The parties are at liberty to agree that only bombay court should have jurisdiction to try the suit. In view of cl. 17 on the reverse of the way bills, i have to hold that the plaintiff has agreed that only bombay court should have jurisdiction to decide the dispute if any, that might arise between the parties. Consequently, i hold that the judgement of the learned additional chief judge is correct, and i dismiss both these appeals, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.
(9) The lower court is direct to return the plaint to the appellant on or before 16/09/1978 along with the original documents.
(10) Order accordingly.