AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 2432 ::2004 AIR SCW 2914 ::(2004) 97 RevDec 80 ::(2004) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 135 ::(2004) 18 IndLD 121 ::(2004) 111 DLT 39 ::(2004) 3 CivLJ 217 ::(2003) 3 ArbiLR 427 ::2004 (2) CivilCourtC 548 ::2004 (4) SCC 671 ::(2004) 2 RecCivR 808 ::(2004) 4 Scale 617 ::2004 (2) All CJ 1537 ::2004 (2) CurCC 131 ::(2003) 3 AllMR 936 (BOM) ::(2004) 5 AllMR 534 (SC) ::2004 (4) ACE 703 ::2004 (4) Cal HN 11 ::2004 (3) All WC 2133 ::(2004) 55 All LR 729 ::(2003) 6 Bom CR 257 ::2004 (5) Bom CR 96 ::2004 (2) BLJR 1091 ::2004 BLJR 2 1091 ::2005 (1) CTLJ 118 ::(2004) 3 CTC 220 (SC) ::2004 (78) DRJ 635 ::2005 (1) MadLW 753 ::(2003) 4 Mah LJ 259 ::(2005) 1 Mad LW 752 ::2004 (3) Pun LR 308 ::2005 (1) LandLR 356 ::2003 Bom LR 4 287 ::2004 (3) SLT 118 ::2004 (3) Supreme 287 ::(2004) 4 AndhLD 22 ::(2004) 18 AllIndCas 49 (SC) ::2004 (18) AllIndCas 49 ::2004 (5) SRJ 268

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Delhi)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. Rajendra Babu, G. P. Mathur , JJ

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.20— Contract Act (9 of 1872) , S.28— Territorial jurisdiction of Court - Determination of - Part of cause of action accrued in both places viz., Delhi and Bombay - Clause in agreement between parties, however, conferring jurisdiction in Courts in Bombay - Not opposed to public policy - Clause not qualified by words like "alone" "only" or "exclusively" - But having regard to facts that purchase order was placed by the defendant at Bombay; the said order was accepted by the branch office of the plaintiff at Bombay; the advance payment was made by the defendant at Bombay; and as per the plaintiffs' case the final payment was to be made at Bombay - It can be inferred that Courts in Bombay have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other Courts - Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi had, therefore, no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. F. A. O. No. 271 of 1998, D/- 21-12-2001 (Delhi), Reversed. (Para 7 9)