“The parties clearly indicated, it was only a Court at Delhi which shall have exclusive jurisdiction with regard to any dispute and no other Court would have jurisdiction over the same. In that view of the matter, the presentation of the plaint at Gurgaon was certainly not before a Court having jurisdiction in the matter. Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC 32 was reiterated in State of West Bengal vs. Associated Contractors, (2015) 1 SCC 32. The presentation of the plaint in a Court contrary to the exclusion clause could not be said to be proper presentation before a Court having jurisdiction in the matter.

The language of Order 7, Rule 10A is in marked contrast to the language of Section 24(2) and Section 25(3). In cases dealing with transfer of proceedings from a Court having jurisdiction to another Court, the discretion vested in Court by Sections 24(2) and 25(3), either to retry the proceedings or proceed from the point at which such proceeding was transferred or withdrawn, is in marked contrast to the scheme under Order 7, Rule 10 read with Rule 10A where no such discretion is given and the proceeding has to commence de novo.

Oriental Insurance Co., (2019) 9 SCC 435 does not lay down the correct law.”

– Hon’ble Justice Navin Sinha, M/s. EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited, [Civil Appeal No. 2904 of 2020].

_____

For an exclusive jurisdiction clause to be valid, it should be (a) in consonance with Section 28 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, i.e., it should not absolutely restrict any party from initiating legal proceedings, (b) Court that has been given exclusive jurisdiction must be competent to have such jurisdiction, i.e., a Court not having jurisdiction as per statutory regime cannot be bestowed jurisdiction by means of a contract and, finally, (c) parties must either impliedly or explicitly confer jurisdiction on a specific set of Courts. These three limbs/criteria have to be mandatorily fulfilled.

Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, (2013) 9 SCC 32 is wholly applicable to facts at hand and, being a Larger Bench decision, binds us.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Ramesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 2282 of 2025] decided on 08.04.2025.