A jurisdiction clause naming a competent court excludes other courts, even without words of exclusivity.

The Plaintiff, a Meerut-based jeweller, instituted a commercial suit seeking recovery of approximately ₹3,34,46,537, return of 1,191 grams of fine gold with interest, damages, and injunctive reliefs against the Defendants arising from a longstanding business relationship involving supplies of gold and jewellery.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants failed to pay for or return goods supplied between January 2024 and April 2025, and that two cheques issued by Defendant No. 1 were dishonoured.

The suit was filed before the Delhi High Court after the Plaintiff alleged that the goods were delivered in Delhi and that the Defendants had assets and business premises in Delhi.

Defendants Nos. 1 and 5 applied under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of the plaint, contending that the invoices—the only written contractual documents—provided that disputes were “SUBJECT TO MEERUT JURISDICTION”.

The Court applied Order VII Rule 10 CPC, under which a plaint must be returned for presentation before the court having jurisdiction.

It relied on the principle that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity and, in any event, before settlement of issues, as stated in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791.

The Court further applied the rule that where two or more courts otherwise possess jurisdiction, parties may agree to confer exclusive jurisdiction on one of them, as recognised in EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) Ltd., (2020) 12 SCC 667.

Relying particularly on Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC 32, the Court held that the absence of words such as “only”, “alone” or “exclusive” is not decisive; a clause providing that an agreement is “subject to” the jurisdiction of courts at a specified place may, by application of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, impliedly exclude other courts.

The Court also considered A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163, which permits exclusion of other courts to be inferred from the terms and context of the jurisdiction clause.

The Court found that there was no separate written contract and that the invoices constituted the contractual documents between the parties.

Each invoice was raised in Meerut and expressly stipulated that disputes would be “subject to Meerut jurisdiction”.

Applying Swastik Gases and EXL Careers, the Court held that the clause clearly indicated the parties’ intention to select Meerut as the forum, and that the absence of express words of exclusivity did not preserve the jurisdiction of other competent courts.

Although the Plaintiff relied on delivery of goods in Delhi and other Delhi-related facts to invoke Section 20 CPC, the Court treated those circumstances as insufficient in light of the parties’ contractual allocation of jurisdiction.

Since the Defendants raised the objection at the first opportunity and the suit was still at a nascent stage before framing of issues, the objection was procedurally maintainable.

The application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was allowed, and the plaint was returned to the Plaintiff for presentation before the competent court at Meerut.

The suit and pending applications were disposed of, with the Court clarifying that it had made no observations on the merits of the dispute.