Supreme Court enforces Calcutta jurisdiction clause in lease dispute, rules against Bhubaneswar filing

The Supreme Court resolved a jurisdictional dispute between parties regarding a lease agreement. The Court held that the agreement's Clause 34 stipulating Calcutta courts' exclusive jurisdiction was binding and not against public policy. As a result, the Respondent's filing in Bhubaneswar breached the agreement, rendering the suit invalid. The Court overturned the lower courts' decisions, ruling in favor of the Appellant. The Respondent was directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000 within two months, with no further proceedings permitted by the Appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Court - Calcutta or Orissa

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard a case where the High Court set aside the District Judge's order and confirmed the lower court's decision, modifying the payment amount. The main issue was determining whether the Court of Calcutta or the Court of Orissa had jurisdiction over the dispute. The Respondent had defaulted on lease payments, leading to arbitration in Calcutta and subsequent possession of the vehicle by the Appellant's appointed Receiver. The Respondent filed a suit in Bhubaneswar challenging the repossession. The trial court ordered repayment and release of the vehicle, but the District Judge overturned this decision. The High Court then upheld the trial court's judgment, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Regarding arrears payment, the Respondent agreed to pay Rs. 5,00,000 within two months, resolving the issue. However, the crucial question revolved around jurisdiction. The Appellant argued that the agreement explicitly stated that only the Courts in Calcutta had jurisdiction over disputes arising from the contract. Clause 34 of the agreement clearly mandated that all legal proceedings related to the agreement must be filed in Calcutta courts. The Supreme Court emphasized that parties are bound by their agreement on jurisdiction unless it violates public policy. Therefore, the Respondent filing the suit in Bhubaneswar breached the agreement, rendering the suit invalid.

Citing legal precedent, the Supreme Court affirmed that when multiple courts have jurisdiction, parties can agree to have their dispute heard in a specific court without contravening public policy. In this case, the agreement's Clause 34 bound the parties to Calcutta courts for dispute resolution. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Appellant, overturning the lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Respondent was directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000 within two months to conclude the matter, with no further proceedings permitted by the Appellant.

---