Court rules forum selection clause doesn't bar writ petition; jurisdiction not established; remanded for merit consideration

The court set aside the judgment regarding the forum selection clause, holding it does not bar the writ petition. However, it upheld that no part of the cause of action arose within the Calcutta High Court's jurisdiction. The matter was remanded for further consideration on merit, emphasizing that constitutional provisions prevail over private agreements.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Forum Selection Agreement
2. Situs of the Respondent's Head Office
3. Accrual of Cause of Action

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Forum Selection Agreement
The primary question was whether the writ petition could be governed by the forum selection agreement between the parties. The court examined the forum selection clause in the tender document, which stated: "for any legal dispute, if arises, the jurisdiction for settlement will be the Civil Court, Murigaon, Assam." The court concluded that this clause applies only to disputes in the private law field and not to writ petitions seeking enforcement of constitutional rights. Thus, the forum selection clause does not bar the writ petition in this court. The court emphasized that constitutional provisions under Article 226 cannot be contracted out by private agreements, and the forum selection clause was deemed vague and inapplicable to the present writ petition.

Issue 2: Situs of the Respondent's Head Office
The court considered whether the location of the respondent's head office within its jurisdiction was a relevant factor for invoking writ jurisdiction. Article 226(2) of the Constitution allows a High Court to exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territory or if the seat of the government or authority is within its territory. The court held that the situs of the respondent's head office is indeed a relevant factor for invoking jurisdiction. The court referenced the Division Bench judgment in Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat, which supported this view, and rejected the learned Single Judge's reliance on a different interpretation.

Issue 3: Accrual of Cause of Action
The court examined whether any part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. The petitioners claimed that the agreement was executed and the work order was accepted at their office in Kolkata. However, the respondents contended that all relevant actions, including the execution of the contract and the receipt of the work order, occurred in Assam. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the work order was received and accepted in Kolkata. Additionally, the court noted that payments were to be made through a bank in Assam, and the principle of "debtor must seek creditor" was not applicable here due to specific contractual terms. Consequently, the court agreed with the learned Single Judge that no part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the learned Single Judge's judgment regarding the forum selection clause, holding that it does not bar the writ petition. However, it upheld the finding that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The court remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge to be heard on merit. The judgment underscores the distinction between private contractual disputes and constitutional writ petitions, emphasizing that constitutional provisions cannot be overridden by private agreements.

---