TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A/32/95 dated 31.5.1995 with M/s Puromatic Filters Pvt. Ltd. 25/100, Yashwant Nagar, Goregaon (W), Bombay for supply of 136 numbers Coarse Filters and 136 numbers Fine Filters. The purchase order was in following terms : "Dear Sir, We are pleased to order the Material parts listed below subject to terms, conditions and instructions, on the reverse hereof and the attachments, if any hereto. Please acknowledge your acceptance by returning the duplicate copy duly signed within one week." Thirty per cent of the amount was paid as advance. The delivery instructions contained a clause \026 Deliver the material at NEW ERA HOUSE/Patalganga Factory. The purchase order mentioned that the same was subject to the terms and conditions mentioned there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... presentation before the Court having territorial jurisdiction in which the suit should have been instituted. The main plea taken in the application was that as per Clause 17 of the Local Purchase Order No.CA/32/95 dated 31.5.1995 any legal proceedings arising out of the order shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts in Bombay and the plaintiff having accepted the terms and conditions of said Local Purchase Order, it was bound by the said clause. It was also pleaded that notwithstanding the aforesaid clause 17 of the purchase order, the contract for supply of coarse filters and fine filters was entered into between the parties at Bombay and the advance payment of Rs.1,16,353.44 was made by the defendant to the plaintiff at Bombay.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was also made at Bombay. According to the averments made in the plaint, the appellant (defendant) sent Form CT-3 and thereafter the plaintiff dispatched the goods from their factory in Delhi through M/s Transport Corporation of India, as per the directions of the defendant. Original documents were sent to the branch office of the plaintiff at 25/100, Yashwant Nagar, Goregaon (W), Bombay but the defendant did not retire the documents from the branch office of the plaintiff and illegally and unauthorisedly took the delivery of the goods from Transport Corporation of India. These averments show that the offer to purchase the goods was made by the defendant at Bombay and the same was accepted by the plaintiff's branch office at Bombay. The adva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy. It was also held that such an agreement does not contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act. 8. The same question was examined in considerable detail in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies AIR 1989 SC 1239 (headnote D) and it was held as under : "When the Court has to decide the question of jurisdiction pursuant to an ouster clause it is necessary to construe the ousting expression or clause properly. Often the stipulation is that the contract shall be deemed to have been made at a particular place. This would provide the connecting factor for jurisdiction to the Courts of that place in the matter of any dispute on or arising out of that contract. It would no....