1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 559 OF 2010 (Sunanda S. Kurve vs. CEO & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 23, 2010. Matter is for final disposal. Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ganer with Shri Wathore, learned counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order dated 30.11.2009, plaint filed by present petitioner in the Court of 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, has been returned to him for its presentation before the Competent Court at Pune as per the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 read with Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure. He was directed to present it before Competent Court at Pune on or before 30.01.2010. The grievance of the petitioner – plaintiff is though Respondent No. 1 is having registered office at Pune, it has also Branch at Nagpur and Kamptee. The petitioner was selected for appointment at Nagpur, was appointed at Nagpur, worked at Nagpur and Kamptee and was also promoted at Nagpur. The suit filed is challenging termination order dated 27.07.2009 which has taken effect at Nagpur. In these circumstances, 2 according to the petitioner, the cause of action has accrued at Nagpur only and relevant clause i.e. clause 21 in the order of appointment dated 12.07.2007 which states that the Court at Pune shall have jurisdiction, therefore, does not imply that the Court at Pune only has jurisdiction. The support is being taken from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, reported at AIR 1989 SC 1239, particularly paras 21 and 22. Shri Wathore, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the view taken by the trial Court is just and proper. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies, (supra) has no application here and he places reliance upon the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Universal Petrol Chemicals Limited, reported at (2009) 3 SCC 107. He contends that the clause in appointment order shows that the parties agreed to the jurisdiction of Court at Pune only. The perusal of judgment A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies, (supra) shows that the Hon'ble Apex Court there has considered the clause conferring jurisdiction and noticed that there were no words like “alone”, “only”, “exclusively” and “like”, which would clearly indicate that the Court at Kaira alone would have jurisdiction in the matter. Para 22 in this background shows that other terms and conditions in the contract 3 were examined and it was noticed that those terms and conditions did not give any indication about the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the Court at Kaira. Because of this interpretation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that the Court at Salem has also jurisdiction. This judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is referred in Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd., (supra) and relevant para is reproduced in para 23 of the said judgment. The clause considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this 2009 judgment is reproduced in para 5 and it contain the word “only”. Thus, the Court at Jaipur was only possessing jurisdiction. The controversy has been considered in the light of these words. It is, therefore, apparent that as per the ratio of above judgments, intention of the parties has to be worked out as per agreement between them. Here the relevant clause on which both parties place reliance is clause 21. It reads as under : “Governing laws and jurisdiction – The laws of the Union of India shall govern this relationship. In the event of any dispute, the courts at Pune shall have the jurisdiction to decide the issue.” There is no other clause being relied upon by the parties to state that it gives any indication as to availability of jurisdiction to any other Court or at any other place. Heading of the clause above shows that it 4 speaks of governing laws and jurisdiction. The laws governing that relationship are stated to be the laws of Union of India, immediately thereafter, the clause conferring jurisdiction on Pune Court appears. Arrangement of both these clauses together reveals that the parties agreed that though laws of Union of India shall govern their relationship in the event of dispute between them, the Courts at Pune shall have jurisdiction to decide the issue. When both these clauses are read together, the intention to confer jurisdiction on the Courts at Pune only is clearly spelt out. In view of this, I do not find anything wrong with the reasoning given by the trial Court. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Time given by the trial Court to the petitioner to present his plaint before the Competent Court at Pune is extended till 30th June 2010. JUDGE *GS.