Admitted salary arrears in summary suit: counterclaim, jurisdiction clause, and arbitration clause did not defeat the claim.

An admitted claim for salary arrears in a summary suit did not require leave to defend, because the salary rate and due period were undisputed and a bare counterclaim did not amount to a triable defence. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Mumbai did not oust Delhi's jurisdiction, as a jurisdiction-selection clause operates only where the chosen court otherwise has independent jurisdiction; the pleaded Delhi-based appointment, posting, and payment supported Delhi jurisdiction. The arbitration clause also did not bar the suit, since no Section 8 application was filed and there was no real dispute over the arrears. The salary claim was decreed with interest and costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the defendant's application for leave to defend disclosed a triable defence to the claim for arrears of salary in a summary suit; (ii) whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Mumbai ousted the Delhi court's jurisdiction; (iii) whether the arbitration clause required the suit claim to be referred to arbitration.

Issue (i): whether the defendant's application for leave to defend disclosed a triable defence to the claim for arrears of salary in a summary suit.

Analysis: The salary rate and the period for which salary was due were not disputed. The defendant's plea of a counterclaim did not by itself justify leave to defend. The objections relating to leave encashment and gratuity were not pursued, and the suit was confined to the admitted salary arrears.

Conclusion: The application for leave to defend failed in relation to the salary claim and was dismissed.

Issue (ii): whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Mumbai ousted the Delhi court's jurisdiction.

Analysis: A jurisdiction-selection clause operates only where more than one court otherwise has jurisdiction. The plaint averred that the employee was appointed at Delhi, was based at Delhi, and was paid at Delhi, and those facts were not controverted. In the absence of any showing that Mumbai courts independently had jurisdiction, the exclusive jurisdiction clause could not confer jurisdiction on Mumbai.

Conclusion: The territorial-jurisdiction objection was rejected and the Delhi court's jurisdiction was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether the arbitration clause required the suit claim to be referred to arbitration.

Analysis: No application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed. More importantly, there was no real dispute regarding the arrears of salary, which were treated as admitted. In such circumstances, compelling arbitration was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The plea of arbitrability was rejected and the suit was held maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The salary claim was decreed with interest and costs, while the defendant's objections to leave to defend, territorial jurisdiction, and arbitration were all rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summary suit for an admitted money claim, a counterclaim does not by itself furnish a triable defence, and an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause cannot defeat the suit where the chosen forum lacks independent jurisdiction or there is no real dispute requiring arbitration.

---