SANDEEP MAINI Vs. DIRECTOR MEGHALAYA STATE LOTTERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This claim has been filed by the complainant for recovery of Rs.5 lacs as prize money of the lottery ticket with interest @ 18% p. a. from 13.7.89 till the date of payment. The claim was contested by the respondent inter alia on the ground, that the State Commission at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as in Clause 12 of the conditions given at the back of the ticket, it is provided, "the legal jurisdiction of the lottery shall be in Shillong, Meghalaya".

(2.) During the pendency of the petition respondent Nos.1 and 2 made the payment of the prize money after statutory deductions, to the complainant. After the payment of the prize money, only the dispute regarding interest for the delayed the payment survives.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that in view of Clause 12 of the conditions, the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We agree with the submission. It is not necessary to dilate upon this point any further, as in appeal No.101 of 1990 decided on 26.11.90. We have already held, that the parties by an agreement can not confer jurisdiction on a Court, which has no jurisdiction to try the case, but if more Courts than one have got the jurisdiction to try the case, the parties can mutually agree that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts. The said observations are fully applicable to the present case, as part of the cause of action arises in Delhi and part of the cause of action arises in Shillong. Consequently we held that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.