Civil Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2016-SC-CIVIL-....
Get started with Indian Law Cases
Your password will be generated automatically and will be sent to your email-id provided in this form.
Full Name  
Email ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City
Mobile No
* Mobile No is required for verification of identity
 Bare Acts  | Legal Resources  | Lawyer Locater  | Articles  | Legal Dictionary  | Download Desktop Software  | Subscription   Home   |   E-Journal  |  Sign-In  | Contact Us  | Disclaimers

Civil Law
 Search Tips
Civil Law
Mode of Citation- ILC-2016-SC-CIVIL-....
Judgement Subject Index/Important Decision/Topic

ILC-2012-SC-CIVIL-Jan-3

A.V.M. Sales Corporation Vs. M/s. Anuradha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd

Head Note

Indian Contract Act, 1872  - Section 23 , Section 28

Parties cannot enter into an agreement in violation of statutory provisions.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Section 20 , Indian Contract Act, 1872  - Section 23 , Section 28

Contract - Stipulation in Clause 13 subjecting the agreement to Calcutta jurisdiction only - Disputes arose - Recovery suit filed in Calcutta - On receiving summons, respondent also filed a recovery suit at Vijayawada - Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Vijayawada Court in view of clear stipulation in clause 13 of the agreement - Further contended that agreement was made at Calcutta, goods were to be delivered and payment was to be made at Calcutta - Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, held the Court at Vijayawada to be having jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction - Appeal against, dismissed - Justification - Respondent contended that its Registered Office was at Vijayawada, Invoices were raised at Vijayawada, goods were dispatched there from and money was payable to the Plaintiff or its nominee at Vijayawada - Whether Courts at Calcutta and Vijayawada both had jurisdiction to try the Suit - If yes, whether excluding the jurisdiction of the Vijaywada Court by mutual agreement violated Sections 23 and 28 of 1872 Act - Held, both courts had jurisdiction - But excluding the jurisdiction of Vijayawada court by mutual agreement did not render the contract invalid or opposed to public policy.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Section 20 , Indian Contract Act, 1872  - Section 23 , Section 28

Court having no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction - Whether can be conferred with jurisdiction under an agreement by parties - Held, no.

Topic(s)-Territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction

Important Decision(s)- 

  • Contract Act - Parties cannot enter into an agreement in violation of statutory provisions.
  • Court having no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction - Whether can be conferred with jurisdiction under an agreement by parties - Held, no.







Full Judgement Body


     
@2015 Indian Law
Name  
Email ID
Please Wait..