SWATCH LIMITED Vs. PRIYA EXHIBITORS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 20th December, 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge, relying on the relevant provisions by which the parties are governed and which have a binding effect on them, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant on the ground that Courts at Delhi will have no jurisdiction to decide the present matter. The relevant provisions as appear in the letter dated 1.07.2003, are reproduced below for reference:-

(2.) The learned Single Judge has held that though the appellant/plaintiff reserved its rights to invoke jurisdiction of the Swiss Court and the application of Swiss laws but it also kept an option with it to seek interim and permanent injunctive relief before any Court, which in the absence of the provisions extracted above, would have jurisdiction to grant the relief. It is also required to be mentioned at this stage that even in the subsequent letters dated 18.7.2003, 25.7.2003 and 31.7.2003, these two paragraphs have been repeated in verbatim. The expression used by the appellant/plaintiff in the said clauses, according to the learned Single Judge, were in the nature of ouster clause. It was held that Delhi Courts would have no jurisdiction to decide the aforesaid suit. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge referred to the provisions of Halsbury s Laws of India, 10th Edition, particularly paragraphs 75.237 and 75.238. Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in British India Steam Navitation Co.Ltd. Vs. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries and Others (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 481. The following passage from British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (supra) would have relevance and, therefore, the same is extracted below for proper interpretation of the provisions relevant for the purpose of deciding this case.

(3.) The decision of the Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. A.P.Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1239, would have direct relevance and, therefore, relevant portion is being extracted below. 18 .Thus, it is now a settled principle that where there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen therewith, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try the dispute which might arise as between themselves the agreement would be valid. If such a contract is clear, unambiguous and explicit and not vague it is not hit by Ss.23 and 28 of the Contract Act. This cannot be understood as parties contracting against the Statute. Mercantile Law and practice permit such agreements.