Admiralty jurisdiction and forum selection clauses cannot defeat a plaint that discloses a cause of action on its face.

A plaint disclosing on its face that cargo was shipped to Calcutta and short-landed there was treated as sufficient to sustain admiralty jurisdiction, so the suit could not be rejected or stayed at the threshold by relying on the defence version. Section 10 CPC was held inapplicable because no prior suit involved the same matter, and the forum selection clause did not conclusively oust Calcutta jurisdiction at the preliminary stage where the carrier's principal place of business and other liability-defeating issues remained factual. Permanent stay for suppression or abuse of process was said to require strong material, which was absent, so the suit was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the admiralty suit could be stayed permanently and the bank guarantee discharged on the basis of the forum selection clause, alleged suppression of material facts, and alleged absence of cause of action or jurisdiction.

Analysis: The plaint disclosed a complete cause of action on the averments that the cargo was shipped to Calcutta and short-landed there, and the court at Calcutta had admiralty jurisdiction on those pleaded facts. A suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by relying on the defence version or by dissecting the plaint, and Section 10 of the Code was inapplicable because there was no prior suit involving the same matter. The forum selection clause could not be treated as conclusively ousting Calcutta jurisdiction at the preliminary stage because the principal place of business of the carrier had not been established on the material then available, and the liability exclusion clause and deck-cargo questions raised factual and evidentiary issues that required trial. Permanent stay on the ground of suppression or abuse of process was not justified absent strong material showing that the plaintiff could not possibly succeed or that another forum was clearly more appropriate.

Conclusion: The order of permanent stay and discharge of the bank guarantee was unsustainable, and the suit could not be halted at the threshold on the grounds urged.

Final Conclusion: The suit was held maintainable to proceed before the Calcutta Court, and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint that discloses a cause of action on its face cannot be stayed or rejected at the threshold by importing the defence case or by treating an unproven forum selection or exclusion clause as conclusively barring jurisdiction; permanent stay for abuse of process lies only in exceptional cases supported by strong material.

---