Case Note & Summary
The applicants, HDFC Bank Ltd. and its officers, were the original defendants in a suit filed by the non-applicant, Archana Dongre, seeking a declaration that her termination letter dated 28/02/2017 was illegal and for reinstatement. The plaintiff had been appointed as Relationship Manager by an appointment letter dated 06/12/2013, which contained a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Mumbai. The defendants filed an application under Section 9 read with Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking return of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the suit was filed at Nagpur. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the jurisdiction clause was not binding as the plaintiff was a workman and the clause was not specifically brought to her notice. The defendants challenged this order in civil revision. The High Court allowed the revision, holding that the trial court erred in ignoring the binding nature of the jurisdiction clause. The court noted that the plaintiff had accepted the appointment letter with its terms, and the clause was clear and unambiguous. The plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation to the appropriate court at Mumbai. The court also directed that the plaintiff be given an opportunity to seek leave of the Mumbai court to file the suit, if necessary.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause - Section 9, Order VII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court rejected the defendants' application for return of plaint despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the appointment letter designating Mumbai courts. The High Court held that the trial court erred in not considering the binding nature of the jurisdiction clause, as the plaintiff had accepted the appointment letter with its terms. The plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation to the appropriate court at Mumbai. (Paras 1-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 9 read with Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the appointment letter.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the trial court's order, and directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the appropriate court at Mumbai. The plaintiff was given liberty to seek leave of the Mumbai court to file the suit, if necessary.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction
- Ouster of jurisdiction
- Contractual jurisdiction clause
- Section 9 CPC
- Order VII Rule 10 CPC
- Return of plaint
