Tis Hazari Court, Delhi : Vinod Kumar Gautam, Additional District Judge, while addressing the matter regarding the question of territorial jurisdiction, has held that the territorial jurisdiction in a matter is determined based on the contract entered between the parties.

In the case at hand where the plaintiff had sought decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the service of the plaintiff as Deputy General Manager along with back salary and perquisites, the contract was entered between the parties with regard to the Court in Calcutta having jurisdiction to try the subject matter in dispute.

As per the Appointment letter dated 02-07-2018, the service/employment of the plaintiff was subject to terms and conditions laid down in the aforesaid Appointment letter and the clause 13 of the said Appointment letter categorically vests the jurisdiction in Calcutta Courts to deals with the disputes relating to the employment of the plaintiff.

Although, the plaintiff has argued that the mentioned suit was not barred by territorial jurisdiction as in the clause 13 of the Appointment letter dated 02-07-2018 the words ‘Calcutta High Court’ was not prefixed by the words ‘alone’ “only” or “exclusive”. However, the Defendant, relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,(2013) 9 SCC 32 wherein it was held that even if the words “only” or “exclusively” were not mentioned before the name of the place where jurisdiction lies, it would not make any material difference and only the court in which place where the parties have agreed to subjected to shall have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

In the view of the aforesaid discussions , the court allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 and 10A read with Section 151 CPC and held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the concerned suit and that the suit needed to be tried by the Courts in Calcutta as per the Appointment letter dated 02.07.2018.

[Ram Singh Bajwa Vs M/s Nicco Engineering Services Ltd, 2022 SCC onLine Dis Crt (Del) 25 order dated on 07-06-2022]


For Plaintiff: Advocate Ashish Goswami

For Defendants: Advocate Swarnendu Chatterjee and Indra Lal

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.