DWARKA RUBBER WORKS Vs. CHHOTELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff brought this suit on the allegations that the defendant entered into an agreement with him to supply goods worth Rs. 232 -8 -0 that the goods were supplied but because they were not according to the sample, they were returned to the defendant at Kanpore. The defendant gave him assurance that he would again supply goods according to sample but neither the goods were supplied, nor was the money refunded to him.

(2.) THE only point pressed before me is of jurisdiction, regarding which it is contended that according to condition No. 5 of the contract to supply goods, it was agreed between the parties that all disputes between them would be settled at Kanpore and in the view of this agreement, the Kanpore Court alone has the jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has cited - 'Musaji Lukman v. Durga Das', : AIR 1946 Lah 57 (FB) (A) and - Hoosen Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd', : AIR 1954 Mad 845 (B) in support of the preposition that such an agreement is valid. No doubt the view taken in the above cases is in favour of the applicant. It is based mainly on the interpretation of S. 28 Contract Act which runs as follows: