Delhi High Court
Sh. Alok Chandra Jha vs Central Bank Of India on 25 July, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.7953/2010
% 25th July, 2013
SH. ALOK CHANDRA JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate.
versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Wad, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking appointment
to the respondent. The petitioner seeks appointment as a Probationary
Officer in Scale-I with the respondent.
2. Counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that this Court
would have no jurisdiction because the only advertisement issued for
recruitment was in Mumbai (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) and which
specifically states that the sole jurisdiction of the Courts with respect to
disputes arising out of the advertisement will be of the Courts at Mumbai.
Reliance is placed upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of M/s. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. in Civil
Appeal No.5086/2013 decided on 3.7.2013 which holds that in fact for
exclusion of jurisdiction expressions 'alone', 'only' etc need not be used.
This judgment in the case of M/s. Swastik Gases (supra) refers to all other
earlier judgments on the point including the celebrated judgment in the case
of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989) 2
SCC 163. The law consistently laid down by the Supreme Court is that once
the ouster clause specifically uses the words 'alone', 'exclusive', 'only' etc
etc, any other Court except the one which is agreed to would not have the
jurisdiction.
3. I may note that there is no objection with respect to territorial
jurisdiction in writing in the counter-affidavit but since the issue is a purely
legal issue arising from the admitted facts from the advertisement issued, I
have allowed the respondent to raise this objection.
4. Counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance upon para 22
of the judgment in the case of Interglobe Aviation Limited Vs. N.
Satchidanand (2011) 7 SCC 463, however, the observations of the Supreme
Court in this para are that parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction of a
Court which otherwise does not have any and therefore this judgment is not
on the proposition that when two Courts have jurisdiction parties can agree
to any one Court having exclusive jurisdiction to decide the disputes
between them.
5. In the present case, the fact that Mumbai Courts have
jurisdiction cannot be disputed because the only advertisement for
recruitment was issued in Mumbai and recruitment process also took place
in Mumbai. Though qua the petitioner recruitment process may have taken
place at Delhi, will not mean that only Courts in Delhi will have territorial
jurisdiction, because a part of cause of action has accrued in Mumbai and
once there is an exclusionary clause with respect to territorial jurisdiction
and whereby only Mumbai Courts have jurisdiction, this Court would not
have territorial jurisdiction.
6. I may note that the Supreme Court in the case of National
Highway Authority of India Vs. Ganga Enterprises & Anr. (2003) 7 SCC
410 has held that even before the main contract is entered into, even then
with respect to an advertisement or invitation to tender there can be an
independent contract. Therefore, in the facts of the present case there is an
independent contract so far as the advertisement is concerned although
appointment/employment has to subsequently follow.
7. In view of the above, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction in
view of the exclusionary clause and only Courts at Mumbai would have
territorial jurisdiction.
8. The writ petition is therefore dismissed on account of lack of
territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the
appropriate Courts at Mumbai for resolution of the disputes.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JULY 25, 2013
Ne
