ALL BENGAL TRANSPORT AGENCY Vs. HARE KRISHNA BANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jurisdiction to try a case is derived by the courts from a statute; parties cannot confer the same by agreement. The question is : Can they oust the same totally by mutual agreement? If so, when?

(2.) This poser has arisen in the two suits at hand as the defendant, a common carrier and its partners, has taken the stand that as per cl.16 of the Consignment Note, the Court in Malda alone has jurisdiction to entertain suits in respect of "all claims and matters arising under the consignment or of goods entrusted for transport." The suits being for recovery of compensation due to non-delivery of goods booked through the petitioner, the clause is otherwise attracted. The question is whether such a term can prevent any of the parties to approach a Court, other than the one specified, even if that court otherwise has jurisdiction?

(3.) To clear the deck, let it be said that undisputably the Court of learned Munsiff at Nowgong before whom the suits were filed has jurisdiction to entertain the same, as a part of the cause of action had arisen there, and the defendant has its branch office at Hojai, wherefrom the plaintiff also hails. Then though it has been urged by the plaintiff in his counter that the aforesaid agreement is not binding on him, as the same had been entered into by one Baisnab Saha who had booked the goods at Calcutta through the defendant there is no force in this contention, as Shri Saha has to be regarded as an agent of the plaintiff for this purpose, as the latter had got his goods booked by the former in his name.