- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2446 OF 2024 (CPC) BETWEEN: MS. NIKITHA RAYAPPA D/O MR. D.H. RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 20/1, A-2, VILLA-LAVELLE 3RD CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHINTAN CHINNAPPA M, ADVOCATE) AND: CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD., 4TH FLOOR, PINE VALLEY EMBASSY GOLF LINKS BUSINESS PARK CHALLAGHATTA BENGALURU-560 071 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(a) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN O.S.NO. 5998/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU C/c LXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU(CCH-76),, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 10 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter CPC) challenging the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned 75th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-76) in O.S No.5998/2020. 2. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC on the ground, that it lacked territorial jurisdiction in view of the exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in the contract of employment executed between the appellant and the respondent. 3. The case raises substantial questions of law regarding the inter-play between party autonomy in choosing jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction provided under Section 20 of the CPC, the question is, whether the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 existence of a valid exclusive jurisdiction clause in an employment contract can override the territorial jurisdiction otherwise available under the statute. 4. As per the case of the appellant, she was appointed as an employee of respondent-Company Cushman and Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd., under appointment letter dated 10.04.2019. She was working at the respondent's office in Bengaluru which is a subordinate office of the respondent-Company. 5. It is her case that, during Covid-19 pandemic, the appellant was allegedly coerced to resign from employment failing which, she was threatened with termination. She claims to have been constructively terminated from employment without due process subsequently, initiated proceedings before the Internal Investigation Committee (IIC) at Bengaluru alleging workplace harassment and illegal termination. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 6. Pursuant to the said events, the appellant instituted OS No.5998/2020 before 75th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-76) seeking damages to the tune of Rs.21,75,000/- representing nine months salary along with other consequential reliefs. The respondent, upon entering appearance, filed an interim application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC praying for return of plaint on the ground that, appointment letter concurred exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts situated at New Delhi. 7. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties allowed the said application and returned the plaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court. 8. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the present appeal gives rise to the following key issues: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 (i) Whether the existence of exclusive jurisdiction clause in the appointment letter, designating courts at New Delhi as the Forum for adjudication is valid and binding even when the alleged cause of action has arisen in Bengaluru? (ii) Whether the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC in returning the plaint? (iii) Whether such exclusive jurisdiction clauses are enforceable in employment related disputes? 9. Before adverting to the merits, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. 10. Section 20 of CPC provides the framework for territorial jurisdiction in Civil Suits, particularly against corporations(company). It states that, a suit may be instituted in a court within whose jurisdiction; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 - the defendant resides, or - the defendant carries on business or - the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. 11. Explanation to Section 20 further clarifies, that a Corporation shall deemed to have carried on business in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has the subordinate office and also at such place. 12. This section is designed to secure that, justice might be brought as near as possible to everyman's hearth stone and that the defendant should not be put to trouble and expense of traveling long distances in order to defend himself in cases in which he may be involved. 13. Further, this section shows that, it will be sufficient for a Court to get jurisdiction over a person that he should carry on business within the local limits of his jurisdiction. Here in this case, the defendant is doing its business having its Head Office at New Delhi. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 14. So far as cause of action so stated in the explanation with regard to the meaning of the cause of action is a Court will have jurisdiction over a matter of the cause of action arises within the local limits of jurisdiction. The word of cause of action as sometimes used in a restricted sense and some times in wider sense. As per Section 20 of CPC, the suit could be instituted in a Court within the legal limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. It is settled that, it is not the act of parties which will confer jurisdiction of the Court but, it is the statute which confers jurisdiction to the Court, Territorial as well as Pecuniary and the court under whose territorial cause of action arisen has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter, keeping under consideration pecuniary limits. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on various judgments and even both the counsel relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court Patel - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Co., reported in (1991) 4 SCC 270. In the said judgments Hon'ble Apex Court relies upon Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., reported in (1971) 1 SCC 286. Placing reliance on these judgments, the counsel for the appellant submits that, the question however, is as to whether in any of these suits the Courts at Bombay also had jurisdiction apart from the Courts within whose jurisdiction the goods were entrusted to the appellant for the purposes of transport. It is observed in the judgment, having given consideration to the facts of the case consideration to the matter, it is opined that the Courts at Bombay did not have jurisdiction and consequently the agreement between the parties conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Courts at Bombay is of no avail. 16. The appointment order specifically states that, all disputes are subjected to courts at New Delhi where the Head Office is functioning. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the first part of the explanation - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 applies only to such corporations where the principle office is located. Though the Bengaluru has a subordinate office but, in view of the explanation to section 20 as well as the clear intendment of the explanation, the courts at Bengaluru have no jurisdiction. 17. I have scrupulously perused the citations and the principles laid down in the said judgment. The letter of appointment issued to the appellant-plaintiff, itself is very much clear stating that, all the disputes are subjected to Delhi Court. On the date of appointment, plaintiff has not raised any objection to that effect. Now the plaintiff cannot raise any objection with regard to the jurisdiction and insist that it is only Bengaluru Courts have jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose in Bengaluru. This submission of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in view of provisions of Section 20 of the CPC as well as law laid down in Patel Roadways, Bombay supra. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 18. Order 7 Rule 10 CPC provides for return of plaint in the following words: "the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted." 19. Thus, this rule mandates return of the plaint where the suit is filed in the Court lacking jurisdiction be it territorial, pecuniary or subject matter. 20. A perusal of Clause 9 of appointment letter issued to the appellant reveals that, it expressly stipulates that 'disputes arising out of relating to in terms of employment, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts at New Delhi'. 21. The principle of party autonomy particularly in commercial and civil jurisprudence permits contracting parties to choose a Court from among multiple Courts that are otherwise competent under the law. This autonomy is a facet of freedom of contract. However, such contractual - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 clauses must be balanced against the broader statutory scheme under Section 20 of CPC. 22. In the instant case, it is not appellant's contention that, New Delhi Courts are completely without jurisdiction under Section 20 of CPC. The respondent's registered office is situated at New Delhi, therefore, on a plain reading of Section 20(a) of CPC, New Delhi Courts do possess territorial jurisdiction. The question then becomes: can a suit be instituted in Bengaluru where according to the plaintiff the part of a cause of action arose - including employment, alleged termination and subsequent internal enquiries - occurred and where the respondent has a subordinate office? 23. Unquestionably, the appellant had the statutory right to institute the suit. But, in view of explanation to Section 20, the plaintiff wants to file a suit in Bengaluru. However, the crucial aspect is that, the parties had, by express agreement, chosen one among multiple courts of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 competent jurisdiction i.e. courts at New Delhi - to be the forum for adjudication. This choice by the plaintiff was conferred as per the appointment letter. The maxim "Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium" - where there is right, there is a remedy - continue to hold true. 24. The appellant has a remedy, the forum for redress is restricted by her own agreement. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the clause is validly binding and enforceable. 25. It is now well settled that, jurisdiction clauses are not confined to purely commercial agreements but, can extend to employment contracts provided there is no overriding statutory prohibition or inequitable bargaining power. In the case on hand, the appellant was not an unskilled worker or labourer. She was appointed in a Managerial capacity and her appointment letter was executed with open eyes which was duly accepted by her. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 26. There is no material to suggest coercion, fraud or unequal bargaining. In such circumstances, the jurisdictional clause cannot be struck down merely on the ground that, the appellant employee now finds it inconvenient or expensive to approach a distant Court. 27. I am of the view that hardship or inconvenience unless amounting to denial of excessive justice cannot render a jurisdictional clause invalid. Upholding party autonomy in contractual relationship is a corner stone of modern civil law and courts must refrain from paternalistic interference in freely negotiated terms. The doctrine of "Volenti Non fit injuria" - to one who consents no injury is done - applies to this case squarely. 28. It must be emphasized that, under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, the trial Court's jurisdiction is limited to examining whether it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is not concerned with the merits of the claim. The existence of a valid exclusive jurisdiction clause - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 designating another competent Court is a sufficient ground for directing return of the plaint. I find that the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated this legal position and applied it in a sound manner. The return of plaint does not defeat the appellant's right to sue but, really requires her to approach forum contractually agreed upon. The procedure under Order 7 Rule 10 must be read in light of Section 20 and the principle that "actus curiae neminim gravabit' - an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. A party agreed to file suit in New Delhi cannot seek advantage from approaching a different forum contrary to the agreement. 29. In view of the above discussion, I find no error legal or factual, in the impugned order. The trial court was justified in allowing the respondent's application filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC and returning the plaint for presentation before the competent Court at New Delhi. The appellant can very well take advantage of Limitation Act. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 30. Thus, this Court affirms the following guiding principles: (i) Where parties to the contract have expressly chosen the competent Court as the forum for adjudication of disputes, such a choice is valid, binding and enforceable. (ii) The existence of cause of action or subordinate offices elsewhere does not nullify such a clause provided the chosen Court has jurisdiction under Section 20 of CPC (iii) Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC empowers the trial Court to return the plaint where such exclusive jurisdiction is agreed upon and binding. (iv) Employment contracts are not excluded from the ambit of jurisdiction clauses but, however, it is the agreement that makes - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27543 MFA No. 2446 of 2024 the law i.e. consensus facit legem, the hardship or the inconvenience is not sufficed into invalidate the said agreement. 31. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) This appeal is dismissed. (ii) Impugned Order DATED 06.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.2 in O.S.No. 5998/2020 on the file of the learned 75th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-76), allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby affirmed. (iii) The appellant is at liberty to get returned the plaint and present the same before the appropriate Court at New Delhi. (iv) No orders as to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47