N/M No.

2826/2019 in SU-1036/2019 1 Order

MHCC040069122019

IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR.MUMBAI AT DINDOSHI

BORIVALI DIVISION, MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2826/2019
IN
S. C. SUIT NO.1036/2019

Tarannum Ibrahim Shaikh.

... Plaintiff.
Vs.
Equifax Software Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
... Defendants.

Adv. Ashutosh, for Plaintiff.

Adv. Nandini Singh Modi, for Defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5.

CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE,

SHRI. TUSHAR T. AGLAWE
(C.R. No.16)
Date : 12th July 2023

ORDER

Defendant no.1 has taken out this notice of motion for return of
plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC.

2. Perused affidavit in support of notice of motion and affidavit in

reply filed by plaintiff.

3. The contention of defendant no.1 is that, the Employment

Agreement with the plaintiff stipulates that any dispute between the
parties shall be subject to the jurisdiction of competent courts at
N/M No.2826/2019 in SU-1036/2019 2 Order

Bangalore only. The cause of action and relief sought relates to

employment of plaintiff and her termination. The employment of
plaintiff was for two locations i. e. Mumbai and Bangalore and as per
Clause-30 of Employment Agreement, the courts at Bangalore will have
jurisdiction to decide the suit.

4. The stand of plaintiff is that, the entire cause of action has arisen
only in Mumbai. Therefore, it is the courts at Mumbai will have the
jurisdiction of the suit. The parties through Agreement cannot decide
the jurisdiction of court as per their choice and the court within whose
jurisdiction the cause of action has taken place is entitled to decide the
dispute.

5. Learned advocate for defendant no.1 submits that, as per

Employment Agreement the parties have agreed for the jurisdiction of
Bangalore Courts and the jurisdiction of other places is excluded. As per
the statements in the plaint, the cause of action is arisen at Bangalore
and at Mumbai. Therefore, as per agreement between the parties it is
only the Bangalore Courts which will have jurisdiction to deal with the
suit. For this, learned advocate for defendant no.1 relied upon Swastik
Gases Private Limited Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [(2013) 9 SCC
32].

5. On the other hand, learned advocate for plaintiff submits that, as

per Section 20 (c) of CPC this court has jurisdiction to deal with the
suit. Plaintiff is employee for the location at Mumbai. She worked at
Mumbai and the termination letter is also received at Mumbai. The
cause of action wholly arose within the jurisdiction of this court.
Therefore, this court will have jurisdiction. For this, he has relied upon
N/M No.2826/2019 in SU-1036/2019 3 Order

ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies [(1989) 2 SCC 163].

6. Perused the plaint and documents produced on record alongwith

plaint.

7. Perused the appointment letter so also the letter of termination.

Clause-30 of the Employment Agreement reads as under:-
Governing Law and Dispute Resolution: This offer letter and
your employment by the Company shall be governed by the
laws of India and any dispute between yourself and the
Company concerning your employment by the Company or
relating to or arising therefrom shall be subject to the
jurisdiction of the competent courts in Bangalore only. If any
provision of this Agreement is held to be void, invalid or
inoperative, such event shall not affect any other provisions
herein, which shall continue and remain in full force and
effect as though such void, invalid or inoperative provision
had not been a part hereof.

8. The Employment Agreement and the statements in plaint when

read together it is seen that, the plaintiff was appointed for the work at
two locations i.e. at Mumbai and at Bangalore. The statements in the
plaint also reflect that, the cause of action has arisen at two places i.e.
at Mumbai and at Bangalore. However, as per Clause-30 of the
Employment Agreement, the parties have agreed for the jurisdiction of
Bangalore Court. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Court at Mumbai is
excluded by the Employment Agreement. In Swastik Gases Private
Limited Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held that, when contract specifies jurisdiction of the courts at a
particular place and such courts have jurisdiction to deal with said
matter, inference is that parties intended to excludes all other courts.

9. Similar by in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies
N/M No.2826/2019 in SU-1036/2019 4 Order

relied upon by the plaintiff it has been held that, the Agreement about
absolute exclusion is void but where more than one court has
jurisdiction, agreement to submit to one, to the exclusion of others is
valid.

10. In the present case, as per the facts pleaded in the plaint the suit
is maintainable at the place where the cause of action wholly or partly
arises, as per Section 20 (c) of CPC. Here the plaint discloses part of the
cause of action at Bangalore and at Mumbai. The Employment
Agreement excluded the jurisdiction of this court when the part of cause
of action has arisen at Bangalore. As such, in view of the facts pleaded
in the plaint it is the proper court at Bangalore which will have
jurisdiction to deal with the suit as per Clause-30 of Employment
Agreement. The plaint is therefore liable to be returned to be presented
before the proper court at Bangalore. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
1) Notice of Motion No.2826/2019 is allowed.
2) Plaint be returned to plaintiff vide Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for
presentation before the proper court at Bangalore.
3) Notice of Motion No.2826/2019 is disposed of accordingly.
TUSHAR Digitally signed by
TUSHAR TULSIDAS
TULSIDAS AGLAWE
Date: 2022.07.08
AGLAWE 17:12:45 +0530

12/07/2023 (Tushar T. Aglawe)

Judge, City Civil Court,
Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai

Dictated on : 12/07/2023
Transcribed on : 12/07/2023
Checked & Signed by HHJ on : 12/07/2023
N/M No.2826/2019 in SU-1036/2019 5 Order

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”

UPLOADED ON 15.07.2023 AT 05.50 PM Mrs. J.S. Gawai
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room No.) HHJ Shri. T. T. Aglawe, C.R. No.16.

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order. 12/07/2023

Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 12/07/2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on 15/07/2023