STEEL SUPPLIERS PVT LTD Vs. SYED HAMEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question before us is whether the Court in Madras has jurisdiction to deal with the suit filed by the respondent herein.

(2.) THE respondent sent a letter dated June 20, 1983 referring to the discussions which it had on 18th and 19th of June and confirmed, having agreed to supply earth to the appellant for filling job on the terms and conditions set out therein. In the last paragraph, it is stated as follows: 'i hope you will find the above in order. I have to request you to kindly furnish me your letter of confirmation along with advance money to enable me to start supplies'. THE appellant sent a reply on June 25, 1983 in its letter head. THE Body of the letter reads thus, 'we are in receipt of your questions dated 20th June 1983 We have the pleasure of confirming your quotation. We enclose herewith our Demand Draft No. 979813-2560/83 dated 25th instant for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards advance payment. Kindly acknowledge receipt, hand over the property documents and commence supplies'. At the bottom of the letter paper, the following words are found in print. 'subject to Bombay Jurisdiction only' Above the said words, the address of the appellant is printed.

(3.) IT is contended for the appellant that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court is, whenever the words'alone', 'only','exclusive'and the like are used it would automatically show that the jurisdiction of other Courts is excluded. IT is also submitted that even in language (sic) of such words, the Supreme Court has pointed out that the maxim,'expressio unius est exclusio alterius'would apply.