Madhya Pradesh High Court
Poorendra Singh vs The South Eastern Coalfied Ltd. ... on 14 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7098
1 WP-17834-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 17834 of 2022
POORENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE SOUTH EASTERN COALFIED LTD. (MINIRTANA) AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brajesh Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging order dated 17.06.2022 contained
in Annexure-P/16 passed by respondent No.1.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has raised
preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court
to entertain the writ petition. He placed reliance on paragraph No.18
of judgment passed in case of AKC And SIG Joint Venture Firm and
Others Vs. Western Coalfields Limited and Others reported in
2020(3) M.P.L.J. 609. which is quoted as under:-
"18. Thus, in view of aforesaid enunciation of law and
taking into consideration Clause 32.1 of the agreement, it
is concluded that the territorial jurisdiction of Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7098
2 WP-17834-2022
ordinarily lies where cause of action arisen but it will be
subject to terms of a valid contract between the parties.
Further, where more than one Court has jurisdiction
consequent upon a part of the cause of action arising
therewith, but if parties stipulate in the contract to submit
to the jurisdiction into a specified Court to try the dispute
arising between them and the contract is unambiguous,
explicit and clear which is not pleaded to be void and
opposed to section 23 of the Contact Act, then suit would
lie in the Court agreed to by the parties and any other
Court will have no jurisdiction even though cause of
action had arisen partly within the territorial jurisdiction
of that Court. Adverting to the factual matrix herein, there
is a valid contract between the petitioner and the
respondents whereby they have agreed to submit suits or
legal actions to the Courts at Nagpur. The principles
enunciated above would apply to a writ filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the provisions
of Article 226(2) as held in the cases of Nawal Kishore
Sharma and Kusum Ingots and alloys Ltd. (supra). In
other words, even though in the present case part of cause
of action may arise within territorial jurisdiction of this
Court, keeping in view Clause 32.1 of the contract, the lis
would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts at
Nagpur or High Court within whose jurisdiction the cases
relating to Nagpur are filed."
In view of same, writ petition may be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court. Therefore, if part of cause of action is arising before this
Court then this Court has jurisdiction to consider and hear the writ
petition.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7098
3 WP-17834-2022
5. Division Bench in aforesaid judgment has specifically held
that when parties have agreed in an agreement and contract is
unambiguous, explicit and clear and which has not been pleaded to
be void then suit will lie in the Court agreed to by the parties and
other Court will have no jurisdiction even though cause of action has
arisen partly within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court.
6. Considering aforesaid judgment of Division Bench, writ
petition is dismissed.
7. Petitioner is at liberty to resort to other remedy available to
him in accordance with law.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
$A
