Section 20 CPC jurisdiction: exclusive forum clause cannot confer jurisdiction where the cause of action does not arise.

Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure was construed to mean that jurisdiction lies where the defendant resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. For a corporation with a principal office and subordinate offices, the Explanation was treated as clarifying clause (a) and not as creating jurisdiction at the principal office unless the cause of action arises there. An exclusive jurisdiction clause can validly select one forum only among courts that already have jurisdiction; it cannot create jurisdiction where none exists. On that basis, Bombay courts lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise there, and the contractual clause in favour of Bombay was ineffective.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a proper construction of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the courts at Bombay alone had jurisdiction by reason of the appellant's principal office being there and the contractual clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Bombay courts, so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts at Madras and the other place where the goods were entrusted.

Analysis: Section 20 permits suit where the defendant resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. The Explanation, when applied to a corporation having both a principal office and a subordinate office, was held to make the place of the subordinate office relevant for jurisdiction only where the cause of action arises there, and not to confer jurisdiction on the court within whose limits the principal office is situated merely because the corporation has such an office. The Explanation was treated as clarifying clause (a), not as creating an additional forum at the principal office in every case. Since the cause of action did not arise at Bombay and the appellant admittedly had subordinate offices at the places where the goods were entrusted, Bombay courts were held not to have jurisdiction. An agreement can validly choose one among courts that already possess jurisdiction, but it cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists.

Conclusion: The exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Bombay courts was ineffective because Bombay courts did not otherwise have jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objection to jurisdiction failed and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the case of a corporation having a principal office and a subordinate office, the Explanation to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself confer jurisdiction on the court at the place of the principal office unless the cause of action arises there; an exclusive jurisdiction clause can operate only between courts that already possess jurisdiction.

---