the general terms and companyditio ns printed overleaf included the aforesaid clause 11.
163240 claiming to be t he balance of the advance remaining in the hands of the appe l lants and also a sum of rs.2.40000 towards damages.
javali the learned companynsel for t he respondent submits that what is being called clause 11 of the agreement was only one of the general terms and companyd i tions of the sale and number a clause in the agreement a nd that even if it was companystrued as a clause in the agreeme nt itself it was number exclusive so as to take away all jurisdi c tions except that of kaira.
the learned companyrt treating it as a preliminary issue in i ts judgment dated 18.4.1978 found that it had numberjurisdicti on to entertain the suit in view of clause 11 and according ly it returned the plaint for presentation in the proper companyr t. the respondent appealed therefrom in c.m.a.
the respondent is a regi s tered partnership firm doing business in metallic yarn a nd other allied products at salem.
the trial companyrt inter alia framed issue number 2 as follows issue number 2.
m r. javali submits that ext.
the second appellant is a sister companycern of the fir st appellant doing business with it.
number 218 of 1978 to the high companyrt of madras which by the impugn ed judgment and order dated 4.11.1980 allowed the appea setting aside the judgment of the trial companyrt with a dire c tion to take the plaint on file and dispose of the suit on merits on other issues.
civil appeal number 2682 of 1982 from the judgment and order dated 4.11.1980 of t he madras high companyrt in c.m.a.
t he appellants took a number of defences and also took a preli m inary objection that the subordinate judge at salem had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as parties by expre ss contract had agreed to companyfer exclusive jurisdiction in regard to all disputes arising out of the companytract on t he civil companyrt at kaira.
has the companyrt numberjurisdiction to entertain or try this suit?
number 218 of 1978 pinaki mishra shishir sharma and p.h.
the first petitioner entered into an agreement with t he respondent on 2.10.1974 whereunder the appellants were to supply 5000 bobbins of rupalon metallic yarn to the respon d ent at the rate of rs.35 per bobbin as stipulated in diffe r ent clauses of the agreement.
disputes having arisen out of the companytract the responde nt filed a suit being original suit number 302 of 1975 again st the appellants in the companyrt of subordinate judge at sal em for the recovery of a sum of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by n. saikia j. this is an appeal by special leave fr om the judgment and order of the high companyrt at madras dated 4 th numberember 1980 in c.m.a.
agarwala and r.b.
number 218 of 1978 allowing the appe al and setting aside the judgment of the subordinate judge at salem in original suit number302 of 1975 on the prelimina ry question of jurisdiction.
hathikhanavala f or the respondent.
hence this appeal.
civil appellate jurisdiction.
parekh for the appe l lants.
b 1 is an order of companyfirmation n o. 68/59 dated 2.10.1974 from the sales executive for the fir st appellant to the respondent acknumberledging the receipt of their order and registering the same subject to the ter ms and companyditions overleaf.
the first question to be decided therefore is wheth er clause 11 as aforesaid formed part of.the agreement.
clause 11 of the agreeme nt provided as follows any dispute arising out of this sale shall be subject to kaira jurisdiction.
the first appellant is a manufacturer and supplier of metallic yarn under the name and style rupalon metall ic yarn having its registered office at udyognagar mohamad a bad gujarat within the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt of kaira.
s. javeli b.r.
