AIROnline 2025 SC 231

Supreme Court Of India

(From : AIR 2022 Pat 84)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Dipankar Datta, Manmohan , JJ

Contract Act (9 of 1872) , S.28— Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.20, O.7 R.10— Contract of employment - Exclusive jurisdiction clause - Legality - Appointment letters issued to bank employees contained clause that in case of dispute with regard to employment, Mumbai Courts would have exclusive jurisdiction - Said clause did not take away right of employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricted employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai only - On facts, courts in Mumbai had jurisdiction - By using the word "exclusive", jurisdiction of all other courts was clearly and explicitly barred - Claim of Bank that suits ought to have been instituted in appropriate court in Mumbai, was justified - Part of order of High Court whereby plaint was rejected was modified directing trial court to return plaint to employee with liberty to present it before competent court in Mumbai. AIROnline 2009 Del 214-DisapprovedJudgment of Delhi High Court dated 12.11.2011-ReversedAIR 2022 Pat 84-Partly Reversed (Para 28 29 30 31 33) .....