[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Gimatex Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Sarvagi Brothers on 19 March, 2026
1/5
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AVINASH
SHARMA CR No. 75 of 2026
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
GIMATEX INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. versus SARVAGI BROTHERS,
Date: 2026.03.19
18:37:42 +0530
Order Sheet
19/03/2026 Shri Nitesh Jain, counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that their
application under Order 7 Rule 10 and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has
been dismissed by the trial Court without considering the fact that
the suit has been filed before the trial Court which is not having
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
He further submits that the case is squarely covered by the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC
32, and refers to paragraph 32, which reads as under:-
32. For answer to the above question, 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
2/5
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.
33. The above view finds support from the
decisions of this Court in Hakam Singh [Hakam
Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 1 SCC 286] ,
A.B.C. Laminart [A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P.
Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163] , R.S.D.V. Finance
[R.S.D.V. Finance Co. (P) Ltd. v. Shree Vallabh
Glass Works Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 130] , Angile
Insulations [Angile Insulations v. Davy Ashmore
India Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 153] , Shriram City
3/5
[Shriram City Union Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Rama
Mishra, (2002) 9 SCC 613] , Hanil Era Textiles
[Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd.,
(2004) 4 SCC 671] and Balaji Coke [Balaji Coke
Industry (P) Ltd. v. Maa Bhagwati Coke Gujarat (P)
Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 403 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 770] .
Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance in the matter
of Ratnesh Dev Sharman v. Cipla Limited, 2012 SCC OnLine
Chh 381. Relevant paragraphs 11, reads as under:-
11. A similar view has been taken by the
Supreme Court in case of Angile Institutions v.
Davy Ashmore India Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 153 :
(AIR 1995 SC 1766) wherein the Hon'ble Judges
while referring to the decision of this Court in
case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. (supra), inter
alia held that Where two Courts have the
jurisdiction consequent upon the cause of action
or a part thereof arising therein, if the parties
agree in clear and unambiguous terms to exclude
the jurisdiction of the other, the said decision
could not offend the provisions of Section 23 of
the Contract Act. In such a case, the suit would
lie in the Court to be agreed upon by the parties.
Therefore, where part of cause of action arose at
both Mumbai and Ambikapur Court, mutual
agreement to exclude the jurisdiction of the
Ambikapur Court to entertain the suit was not
opposed to public policy and was valid and
therefore, the trial Court has not committed any
error of law in returning the plaint for its proper
presentation.
4/5
Learned counsel for applicant lastly places reliance in the
judgment passed in the matter of R.P. Infosystems Private
Limited Versus Redington (India) Limited (2023 SCC OnLine
Cal 6718), relevant paragraph 28 reads as under:-
28. It was argued by the award debtor that the
purchase order is the only contract between the
parties and, and that the same confers jurisdiction
upon Kolkata. However, the said purchase orders
contain no arbitration clause and the clause
referred to is a generic one which states that "The
offer subject to Kolkata jurisdiction". Clause 19 of
the invoices raised by the award holder contains
the arbitration clause and also confers exclusive
jurisdiction upon the courts in Chennai. These
invoices having been signed and accepted by the
award debtor, will override the purchase orders
issued earlier. Moreover, the subject matter of the
dispute arises out of the invoices between the
parties. An arbitration clause which specifically
confers jurisdiction upon courts at a particular
place or designates the seat of arbitration, will
override a general jurisdiction clause even if
contained in an earlier document exchanged
between the parties.
Issue notice to Respondent No.1 on payment of PF by
ordinary as well as speed post, by tomorrow.
Also heard on I.A. No.1/2026, application for grant of ad-
interim relief.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering the fact that the issue involved is regarding
territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and further considering
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this respect,
purely as an interim measure, further proceedings of the trial Court
in Civil Suit No.8B/2024 pending before the Court of First Civil
Judge Class I, Senior Division, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon
is hereby stayed till the next date of hearing.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash
