“The parties clearly indicated that it was only the 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 the 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 the 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24(2) and 25(3), either to retry the proceedings or proceed from the point at which such proceeding was transferred or withdrawn, is in marked contrast to the scheme under Order 7, Rule 10 read with Rule 10A where no such discretion is given and the proceeding has to commence de novo.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].