SAJAN TANTIYA Vs. MESSRS AASIA INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and the plaint was filed in the suit be taken off the file, and further for dismissal of the suit.

(2.) According to the petitioner (defendant herein) the suit is based on an agreement dated Nov. 30, 1994. According to the petitioner, under Clause 8 of the said agreement only the relevant Courts at Bombay has the exclusive jurisdiction, Therefore, by such ouster Clause this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction and therefore, the suit should be dismissed. It is also contended that substantial part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Bombay. Mere receipt of the termination of a contract cannot constitute a part of the cause of action in the suit. Hence leave should be revoked.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (defendant herein) relied upon a judgement reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1239 (A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem) and contended that if the two Courts have jurisdiction and one of such Courts has been ousted by an agreement, the jurisdiction of one Court is ousted that would not be against the public policy, She drew my attention to Clause 8 of the said agreement and submitted that relevant Court at Bombay has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the claim and disputes between the parties. Therefore, according to her, this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction.