IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1997 OF 2007 SUMMONS NO. 1997 OF 2007 SUMMONS NO. 1997 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 572 OF 2006 NO. 572 OF 2006 NO. 572 OF 2006 Anish Metals P. Ltd........ Plaintiff versus NSTC Limited and ors......... Defendants. Jagdish Gendrao i/b S.Ashiwinkumar & Co. for the plaintiff Ms. R.S.Sangvikar i/b M.P. Rege for defendant no.1 Shri A.S.Rao for defendant no.2. in support of C.S. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 11TH JUNE, 2008. 11TH JUNE, 2008. 11TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the defendant no.2. The suit has been filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount of Rs. 23,83,990/-. According to the Plaintiff, the defendant no.2 is the owner of the scrap material which were put to auction by inviting tenders by defendant no.1, as an agent of defendant no.2. The Plaintiff being a successful bidder, he was allotted the tender for lifting of the scrap material. Under the terms of the tender the Plaintiffs have deposited an amount of Rs. 15,10,000/-. The case of the Plaintiff is that scrap material weighing 24225 kgs. was in short supply and not available at the spot. Hence the suit has been filed for recovery of the value of the said quantity of scrap material. The defendants have beented unconditional leave to defend the suit vide Summons for Judgment. 2. The defendant objects to the maintainability of the suit on two grounds: (1) That under the contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the defendants, parties agreed to the jurisdiction of Vishakapatanam to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all other courts and thus according to the defendants the suit is not maintainable at Bombay. (2) That having regard to the arbitration clause No.14.1 of the General terms and conditions of tender, in the event of any dispute and/or difference arisen between the tender/purchaser and/or their agent as to the interpretation and/or execution of the contract and/or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties, the said disputes and/or difference shall be referred to General Manager of the defendant no.1. On the above referred premises, the defendant no.2 has filed the Chamber Summons. Reverting to the first objection to the maintainability of the suit at Bombay and lack of territorial jurisdiction of this court, it is to be seen that the provision to that effect is stipulated for in clause No.15.9 of the General terms and conditions of the tender. Clause 15.9 reads thus: "All kind of legal proceedings in any matter arising out of the contract, shall be tried only by appropriate civil court at Vishakapatanam only." 3. In the submission of the learned counsel of defendant no.2 clause 15.9 excludes the jurisdiction of all other courts and retains the jurisdiction only with civil court at Vishakapatanam. Use of the word ‘only’ while making a reference of the court at Vishakapatnam is indicative of exclusion of jurisdiction of all other court. 4. I am in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for defendant no.2. The Plaintiff at the time of instituting the suit had obtained the leave under clause 12 of the Latters Patent of the Bombay High Court by representing that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and part of cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction. On examination of the pleadings and the General terms and conditions of the tender, it is clear that the jurisdiction to try the dispute in the contract between the Plaintiff and the defendant vests only with the appropriate civil court at Vishakapatanam. Hence leave granted need to be revoked. In the result allowing the Chamber Summons I revoke the leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. I intimate the counsel for the plaintiff that I propose to return the plaint to the Plaintiff for its presentation before the appropriate court. It shall be open for the Plaintiff to take an appropriate application as contemplated by Order VII Rule 10-A(2) of the CPC. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that he has no instructions in the matter and seeks discharge. Accordingly Chamber Summons is disposed of. ( A.P. DESHPANDE,J.)