CASTROL INDIA LTD Vs. MALAYALAM AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.02.2003 in O.S. No. 267 of 2001 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam holding that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Cl.18 of Ext.A1 agreement dated 16.09.1998 entered into between the parties.

(2.) For disposal of this appeal, we may refer to the parties according to their status before the court below. Plaintiff, M/s. Castrol India Limited, is engaged in the manufacture of marketing of various lubricants and greases for automobiles. First defendant is the partnership firm of which second defendant is the Managing Partner and other defendants are its partners. First defendant was appointed as the distributor of the plaintiff company as per agreement dated 16.09.1998. Agreement was executed at Chennai. Office of the first defendant situates at Vyttila at Cochin and defendants 2 to 5 are natives of Kottayam. Suit was instituted for realisation of money on account of value of castrol products supplied to the defendants. It was stated that cause of action for the suit has arisen at Vyttila, Poonithura within the jurisdiction of Sub Court, Ernakulam. Along with the plaint, plaintiff has also filed I.A. No. 2341 of 2001 for interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating encumbrance over the stocks of castrol products kept in their godown at Muttom, Alwaye and from withdrawing any amount from their Bank accounts. They also filed I.A. No. 6138 of 2001 for auction sale of the articles.

(3.) Defendant filed objection to the interlocutory applications contending that as per the agreement dated 16.9.1998, court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I.A. No. 6138 of 2001 was however disposed of on 19.6.2002 allowing the plaintiff to sell the articles by auction with the assistance of the advocate commissioner. It was also held that the court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Against that order defendants preferred C.R.P. No. 1152 of 2002 before this Court in which the finding on the maintainability of the suit was set aside and left the issue open to be decided as per order dated 11.10.2002. Defendant then filed I.A. No. 4969 of 2002 to consider the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The court allowed the application and held that Ext.A1 would reveal that the parties actually intended the plaintiff to exercise jurisdiction to institute the suit at Chennai only or else to refer the parties to arbitration. It was therefore held that courts at Chennai alone have got the jurisdiction. The court therefore directed the plaint to be returned for presentation before proper court having jurisdiction.