[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikrant Jindal vs Hindustan Zink Limited (Vedanta Ltd.) ... on 19 March, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:13218]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 38/2026
Vikrant Jindal S/o Rajinder Jindal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o B-
2906, Western Heights, Four Bunglows, Andheri West, Mumbai,
Maharashtra. At Present Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
Hindustan Zink Limited (Vedanta Ltd.), Through Signatory Shilpa
Nayar, Dy. Head, Legal, Hindustan Zinc Limited. H/o Yashad
Bhawan, Opposite Swaroop Sagar, Udaipur. 313004
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanwar Lal Tiwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, through VC
Mr. Hardik Vyas
Mr. Sourabh Rajpurohit
Mr. Nishant Bapna
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
19/03/2026
1. The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of
order dated 11.12.2025 passed by District Judge, Udaipur in Civil
Original Suit No.77/2025 whereby application under Order 7 Rule
11 r/w Sections 21 & 151, CPC filed by the defendant, stood
dismissed.
2. Vide the application, two fold grounds were raised by the
defendant firstly, the agreement in question comprised of an
exclusive jurisdiction clause vide which the exclusive jurisdiction
was bestowed to the Courts at Delhi and hence the suit filed at
Udaipur was not maintainable. Secondly, the agreement
(Uploaded on 21/03/2026 at 05:20:46 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13218] (2 of 3) [CR-38/2026]
comprised of an 'arbitration clause' and therefore too, the suit in
question could not have been entertained.
3. Admittedly, subsequent to filing of the application in
question, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the defendant which remains
pending till date.
4. The learned Trial Court therefore, considered the ground
pertaining to exclusive jurisdiction only. The Court while relying
upon Hon'ble the Apex Court judgment in Hakam Singh vs M/S.
Gammon (India); AIR 1971 SC 740 held that a jurisdiction by
an agreement can be conferred only to a Court which has a
jurisdiction to entertain the suit and not to any other Court which
otherwise would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit as
no cause of action arose at that place.
5. After hearing the counsels and perusing the record, this
Court is in consonace with the findings as recorded by the learned
Trial Court.
6. A bare perusal of application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as
filed by the defendant does not reflect any averment as to why
Udaipur would have no jurisdiction and Delhi would have the
jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Further, no averment of any
cause of action having arisen at Delhi has also been made.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgment of Rakesh
Kumar Verma Vs. HDFC Bank LTD.; 2025 INSC 473 while
dealing with the issue pertaining to 'exclusive jurisdiction clause'
held as under:-
"18. A bare perusal of the above decisions leads to
the conclusion that for an exclusive jurisdiction
clause to be valid, it should be (a) in consonance
(Uploaded on 21/03/2026 at 05:20:46 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13218] (3 of 3) [CR-38/2026]
with Section 28 of the Contract Act, i.e., it should
not absolutely restrict any party from initiating legal
proceedings pertaining to the contract, (b) the
Court that has been given exclusive jurisdiction
must be competent to have such jurisdiction in the
first place, i.e., a Court not having jurisdiction as
per the statutory regime cannot be bestowed
jurisdiction by means of a contract and, finally, (c)
the parties must either impliedly or explicitly confer
jurisdiction on a specific set of courts. These three
limbs/criteria have to be mandatorily fulfilled."
8. Applying the above ratio to the present matter, the plaint
herein, does not reflect any cause of action having arisen at Delhi.
Further, no averment to the said effect has even been made by
the defendant in his application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.
Meaning thereby, no cause of action arose at Delhi and hence, the
Courts at Delhi would have no jurisdiction otherwise, to entertain
the present subject matter. In that circumstance, the exclusive
jurisdiction clause in the present agreement would be of no
consequence as no jurisdiction to the Courts at Delhi could have
been conferred by the said clause.
10. No interference in the order impugned is made out and the
revision petition is hence, dismissed.
11. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
7-suraj/-
(Uploaded on 21/03/2026 at 05:20:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
