- Case
- RAKESH KUMAR VERMA v. HDFC BANK LTD. (Supreme Court of India, 08-04-2025)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Indian Contract Act.
Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 28 is discussed in detail. The court states that Section 28 "does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses". It clarifies that what is barred is the "absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum". The court emphasizes that an agreement conferring jurisdiction on a court, where multiple courts have jurisdiction, does not contravene Section 28. The judgment also states that for an exclusive jurisdiction clause to be valid, it should be in consonance with Section 28, meaning it should not absolutely restrict any party from initiating legal proceedings pertaining to the contract. The court also states that such a clause is neither forbidden by law nor against public policy and does not offend Section 28.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII, Rule 6 is mentioned in the context of limitation. If fresh suits are instituted, Rakesh and Deepti may plead in their plaints the grounds on which exemption from the law of limitation is claimed in terms of Order VII, Rule 6 of the CPC. Order VII, Rule 10 is discussed in the context of the Patna High Court's error. Instead of rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, the proper course would have been to direct return of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10 to Rakesh for presentation before the competent court in Mumbai. The court directs the trial court to return the plaint to Rakesh and make the necessary endorsement in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10. Order VII, Rule 11 is discussed in the context of rejection of plaint. The Patna High Court committed a fundamental error by allowing the application of HDFC Bank under Order VII, Rule 11, meaning the plaint stands rejected. Section 20 is discussed in relation to jurisdiction. The explanation to Section 20 of the CPC is essential to decide the issue of jurisdiction. The court considers that the decision to employ Rakesh and Deepti were taken in Mumbai, the appointment letter in favour of Rakesh was issued from Mumbai, the employment agreement was dispatched from Mumbai, the decision to terminate the services of Rakesh and Deepti were taken in Mumbai and the letters of termination were dispatched from Mumbai, and concludes that the courts in Mumbai do have jurisdiction.
