Statutory jurisdiction prevails over foreign forum clauses, and unfair trade practice jurisdiction requires conduct in India, not mere effect

A contractual choice-of-foreign-law and foreign-forum clause does not displace statutory jurisdiction under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, because the Act creates independent remedies that operate only under its own scheme. In unfair trade practice proceedings against a foreign entity, jurisdiction depends on whether the alleged practice was carried on in India; a mere overseas transaction or felt effect in India is not enough. The Commission had to resolve factual questions on agency, representations, passing of title, and repair obligations on evidence, so reliance on Indian effect alone was unsustainable. The matter was remitted for evidence on the second jurisdictional objection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a contractual clause selecting foreign law and foreign forum could exclude the jurisdiction of the Commission in proceedings for statutory compensation under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. (ii) Whether the Commission could assume jurisdiction over allegations of unfair trade practice where the appellant was a foreign entity and the complaint required proof of acts or representations within India.

Issue (i): Whether a contractual clause selecting foreign law and foreign forum could exclude the jurisdiction of the Commission in proceedings for statutory compensation under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Analysis: An agreement conferring exclusive forum elsewhere is ordinarily enforceable in civil disputes and is not contrary to public policy or the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, proceedings under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 create distinct statutory remedies, and those remedies are not governed by the parties' contractual choice of forum. The statutory powers invoked under the Act can be exercised only under that Act, and the contractual jurisdiction clause could not apply to such proceedings.

Conclusion: The contractual forum clause did not oust the Commission's jurisdiction in respect of the statutory complaint.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commission could assume jurisdiction over allegations of unfair trade practice where the appellant was a foreign entity and the complaint required proof of acts or representations within India.

Analysis: The Act contemplates relief only in respect of trade practices occurring in India when the party concerned does not carry on business in India. Mere overseas sale or a mere felt effect in India is not enough unless the unfair trade practice itself is carried out in India. The question whether the respondent acted as the appellant's agent, whether the alleged representations were made, whether title passed abroad, and whether the alleged repair obligations existed were factual matters requiring evidence. The Commission therefore had to decide the second jurisdictional objection on evidence and could not rest jurisdiction solely on the asserted effect in India.

Conclusion: The second jurisdictional objection required evidence and the Commission's reliance on mere Indian effect was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the limited extent that the matter was sent back for evidence on the second jurisdictional objection, while the contractual forum clause was held inapplicable to the statutory proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual choice-of-forum clause cannot displace statutory jurisdiction created by a special enactment, and in unfair trade practice proceedings involving a foreign party, jurisdiction depends on the alleged practice being carried on in India, not merely on its consequences being felt in India.

---