A jurisdiction clause naming specific courts implies exclusion of all other competent courts.

The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of ₹39,94,087 against the respondent/defendant.

The District Judge (Commercial Court-01), East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, holding that the Courts at Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, possessed territorial jurisdiction.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant was carrying on business within Delhi’s jurisdiction and that the goods had also been supplied to the defendant at Mayur Vihar, Delhi, giving rise to part of the cause of action under Section 20(c) CPC.

The Commercial Court found that the plaintiff carried on business at Noida, payments were made through HDFC Bank, Sector 16, Noida, the plaintiff maintained the defendant’s ledger at Noida, and transactions and supplies substantially occurred there.

The tax invoices contained a clause making disputes subject to the jurisdiction of Gautam Budh Nagar courts.

The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the invoices did not use words such as “exclusive,” “alone,” or “only” and therefore did not exclude Delhi’s jurisdiction.

Whether the Delhi courts had territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC because part of the cause of action arose in Delhi?

Whether the jurisdiction clause in the tax invoices, stating that disputes were subject to Gautam Budh Nagar jurisdiction, impliedly excluded the jurisdiction of other competent courts despite the absence of words such as “exclusive,” “alone,” or “only”?

Whether the Commercial Court was justified in returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC?

The Court applied Section 20(c) CPC, under which a suit may be instituted where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

It also applied Order VII Rule 10 CPC, which requires return of a plaint when the court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

Relying principally on M/s Swastik Gases P. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC 32, the Court held that where parties agree that an agreement or transaction is subject to the jurisdiction of courts at a specified place, and those courts otherwise possess jurisdiction, the clause ordinarily implies that such courts alone have jurisdiction, even if the words “only,” “alone,” or “exclusive” are absent.

The principle is based on expressio unius est exclusio alterius—the express designation of one forum impliedly excludes others.

Such an agreement is not contrary to Sections 23 or 28 of the Contract Act.

The Court accepted that both Delhi and Gautam Budh Nagar could otherwise have territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC because aspects of the transactions and supply of goods were connected with both places.

However, the invoices expressly subjected disputes to Gautam Budh Nagar jurisdiction, and the Commercial Court had found substantial factual links with Noida, including the plaintiff’s business location, banking arrangements, ledger maintenance, and the place where most transactions occurred.

Applying Swastik Gases, the Court held that the absence of the words “exclusive,” “alone,” or “only” was not decisive.

The wording of the jurisdiction clause sufficiently demonstrated the parties’ intention to select Gautam Budh Nagar courts and impliedly exclude other competent forums.

The Court therefore found no error in returning the plaint.

The Commercial Court was correct in returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the court of appropriate territorial jurisdiction.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.