
or
In Swastik Gases Ltd. vs. Indian Oil Corporation the Principal question before the three judge bench of Supreme Court was: Whether, in view of Jurisdiction Clause in the Agreement between the Calcutta High Court would have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the application made by the appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act? The bench comprised of Hon’ble Justices R.M Lodha, Kurian Joseph, Madan B. Lokur.
And in response to that question the Hon’ble Court held that: “…we have to see the effect of the jurisdiction clause in the agreement which provides that the agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata. It is a fact that whilst providing for jurisdiction clause in the agreement the words like ‘alone’, ‘only’, ‘exclusive’ or ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ have not been used but this, in our view, is not decisive and does not make any material difference. The intention of the parties – by having clause 18 in the agreement – is clear and unambiguous that the courts at Kolkata shall have jurisdiction which means that the courts at Kolkata alone shall have jurisdiction. It is so because for construction of jurisdiction clause, like clause 18 in the agreement, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius comes into play as there is nothing to indicate to the contrary. This legal maxim means that expression of one is the exclusion of another. By making a provision that the agreement is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata, the parties have impliedly excluded the jurisdiction of other courts. Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the courts at a particular place and such courts have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, we think that an inference may be drawn that parties intended to exclude all other courts. A clause like this is not hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act at all. Such clause is neither forbidden by law nor it is against the public policy. It does not offend Section 28 of the Contract Act in any manner.”
The appellant, M/s. Swastik Gases Private Limited, having its registered office at Jaipur, entered into an agreement with IBP (now mergerd with Indian Oil Corp.), whereby, the appellant was appointed the company’s consignment agent for marketing lubricants at Jaipur.
In 2003 as huge quantity of stock of lubricants could not be sold by the appellant despite several meetings parties failed to resolve dispute amicably.
On 16.07.2007, the appellant sent a notice to the company claiming a sum of Rs.18,72,332/- under diverse heads with a request to the company to make payment of the above amount failing which it was stated that the appellant would pursue appropriate legal action against the company.
Thereafter, on 25.08.2008 another notice was sent by the appellant to the company invoking arbitration clause wherein name of a retired Judge of the High Court was proposed as the appellant’s arbitrator. The company was requested to name their arbitrator within thirty days failing which it was stated that the appellant would have no option but to proceed under Section 11 of the 1996 Act.
The defendant did not nominate its arbitrator within thirty days of receipt of the notice dated 25.08.2008 resultantly appellant applied under Section 11 of the 1996 Act in the Rajasthan High Court for the appointment of arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising out of the Agreement.
“17.0. Arbitration: If any dispute or difference(s) of any kind whatsoever shall arise between the parties hereto in connection with or arising out of this Agreement, the parties hereto shall in good faith negotiate with a view to arriving at an amicable resolution and settlement. In the event no settlement is reached within a period of 30 days from the date of arising of the dispute(s)/difference(s), such dispute(s)/difference(s) shall be referred to 2 (two) Arbitrators, appointed one each by the parties and the Arbitrators, so appointed shall be entitled to appoint a third Arbitrator who shall act as a presiding Arbitrator and the proceedings thereof shall be in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or reenactment thereof in force. The existence of any dispute(s)/difference(s) or initiation/continuation of arbitration proceedings shall not permit the parties to postpone or delay the performance of or to abstain from performing their obligations pursuant to this Agreement.”
“18.0. Jurisdiction: The Agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata.”
Facts stated for establishing that part of cause of action arose at Jaipur
The most important argument put forth by the Additional Solicitor General for the Defendant was that the view of the designate Judge that from clause 18 of the agreement, it was apparent that the parties intended to exclude jurisdiction of all courts other than the courts at Kolkata.
On the basis of maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”(expression of one is the exclusion of another) and with reference to a catena of cases most importantly A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163. The hon’ble court held that:
The LW Bureau is a seasoned mix of legal correspondents, authors and analysts who bring together a very well researched set of articles for your mighty readership. These articles are not necessarily the views of the Bureau itself but prove to be thought provoking and lead to discussions amongst all of us. Have an interesting read through.
Lex Witness Bureau
Lex Witness Bureau
For over 10 years, since its inception in 2009 as a monthly, Lex Witness has become India’s most credible platform for the legal luminaries to opine, comment and share their views. more...
Connect Us:
The Grand Masters - A Corporate Counsel Legal Best Practices Summit Series
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
The Real Estate & Construction Legal Summit
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
The Information Technology Legal Summit
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
The Banking & Finance Legal Summit
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
The Media, Advertising and Entertainment Legal Summit
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
The Pharma Legal & Compliance Summit
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
We at Lex Witness strategically assist firms in reaching out to the relevant audience sets through various knowledge sharing initiatives. Here are some more info decks for you to know us better.
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved