RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revision applicant.

(2.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 7th September, 2004 passed by the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Jalgaon below Exhibit -1 in Special Civil Suit No. 373 of 1997.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revision applicant submits that the printed note below the consignment receipt constituted a specific agreement between the parties that only the Courts at Bombay would have jurisdiction to entertain and try suit between the parties arising out of the said consignment. He submits that since the revision applicant has an office in Bombay, only the Courts in Bombay would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. He refers to and relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd. : [1971]3SCR314 . It is settled position in law that the parties cannot by an agreement confer jurisdiction on a Court which has none. If, however, there are two or more Courts, which would have jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit, it would be open to the parties to agree that any one of the two or more Courts would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit to the exclusion of others. Admittedly, the goods were being transmitted from Burhanpur to Bhusawal. During transit, the goods did not pass through Bombay at all. In the circumstances, it cannot be disputed that no part of cause of action arose at Bombay. Therefore, the Courts at Bombay would not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit arising out of damage to the goods transported under the consignment receipt.