Dismissed¶60

M/S. Erakadi Systems v. Laxmi Memorial Education Trust (R)

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2025CRP/546/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Territorial jurisdiction; jurisdiction clause/endorsement on supply invoice ('Subject to Bangalore High Courts Jurisdiction'); whether parties can contractually confer jurisdiction on a court lacking jurisdiction; Order VII Rule 10 r/w Section 20 CPC - return of plaint to proper Court; Section 115 CPC civil revision petition; O.S.No.149/2011, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Mangaluru; sale of ICU ventilators; Erakadi Systems v Laxmi Memorial Education Trust; CRP No. 546 of 2018; dismissed; Justice V Srishananda; decided 23-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

Parties, by volition, can invest a jurisdiction in a Court which has got default jurisdiction. ¶51

M/S. Erakadi Systems Vs Laxmi Memorial Education Trust (R) — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.149/2011 should have been returned for presentation before the proper Court at Bengaluru on the strength of the endorsement 'SUBJECT TO BANGALORE HIGH COURTS JURISDICTION' on the defendant's supply invoice dated 21.10.2008, i.e., whether the trial Court rightly rejected the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 10 r/w Section 20 CPC.

¶45

Court's answer

Parties, by volition, can invest a jurisdiction in a Court which has got default jurisdiction.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Parties cannot, by volition or by contractual terms, invest a jurisdiction in a Court which lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

¶52

Key takeaways

In view of the endorsement on the invoice, the Bengaluru High Court is not having the original jurisdiction to entertain the suit.ratio¶53
The endorsement found in the invoice, sought to be relied on by the defendant, cannot be countenanced as valid in law.ratio¶53
The rejection of the defendant's application by the trial Judge in the impugned order is perfectly justified and requires no interference in the revisional jurisdiction.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (oral order, Justice V Srishananda, 23.10.2025), CRP No. 546 of 2018 under Section 115 CPC: the revision petitioner (defendant in O.S.No.149/2011 before the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru) had sought return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 r/w Section 20 CPC, relying on the endorsement 'SUBJECT TO BANGALORE HIGH COURTS JURISDICTION' on its supply invoice dated 21.10.2008; the trial Court had rejected that application on 27.09.2014 (IA.No.I). Held: parties may by volition invest jurisdiction in a Court having default jurisdiction, but cannot by volition or contractual terms invest jurisdiction in a Court which lacks jurisdiction to entertain the dispute; in view of the endorsement the Bengaluru High Court lacked original jurisdiction over the suit, and the invoice endorsement could not be countenanced as valid in law; the trial Judge's rejection was therefore perfectly justified and required no interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42099 CRP No. 546 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.546 OF 2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. ERAKADI SYSTEMS PLOT NO. 109, 1^ST PHASE, ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 100,

¶10

REPRESENTED BY HIS MANAGING PARTNER, K.Y. ASHOK MURTHY, S/O K. V. MURTHY YERKADITHAYA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI S K ACHARYA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

LAXMI MEMORIAL EDUCATION TRUST (R) A. J. TOWERS, BALMATTA, MANGALORE-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER AND TRUSTEE.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI MANMOHAN P N, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2014 PASSED ON IA.No.I IN O.S.NO.149/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, REJECTING THE IA.NO.I FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 10 R/W SECTION 20 OF CPC.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:42099 CRP No. 546 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manmohan P.N., learned counsel for respondent.

¶24

Defendant is the revision petitioner, challenging the order of the trial Court rejecting his application filed under Order VII Rule 10 r/w Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶25

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

¶26

3.1. Respondent has filed a suit before the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore in respect of the sale of ventilators and the disputes there under.

¶27

Defendant after entering the appearance before the trial Court filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 r/w Section 20 CPC, requesting the Court to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper Court.

¶28

The reason that was assigned by the defendant before the trial Court was that invoice for supply of the machineries dated 21.10.2008, wherein it has been mentioned as under:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:42099 CRP No. 546 of 2018

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

“ERKADI SYSTEMS	Invoice	No.		Dated
PLOT NO.109,	124			21-Oc	t-2008
1 PHASE, ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 100 KARNATAKA, INDIA	Delivery	Note		Mode/ Payme On del	Terms of nt ivery
TEL:9180 2852 2442/3 FAX:91 80 2852 2441 [email protected]	Supplier’ 124/ES/ 09 dt.21	s Ref. 001/2110/0 .10.2008	8-	Other Refere Sales Anura	nce(s) Man: g Guptha
Consignee	Buyer’s 643/200	Order No. 8		Dated 14-Oc	t-2008
A.J.Institute of Medical Sciences	Despatc No.	h Docum	ent	Dated
Kuntikana Mangalore-575 004	Despatc By Hand	h through		Destin Manga	ation lore
Buyer (if other than consignee)	Terms of	delivery
A.J.Institute of Medical Sciences Kuntikana
Mangalore-575 004
Description of Goods	Quantity	Rate	Per	Disc %	Amount
FG-VE-IV-0011 (ICU Ventilator ADVENT) Adult Advent -U S/n S/n S/n S/n S/n 90300-00000 (Diss Air Hose Assembly)	5.00 Nos. 5.00 Nos.	4,80,769.24	Nos		24,03,846.20
90300-00001 (Diss O2 Hose Assembly)	5.00 Nos.
70000-00033 (Support Arm)	5.00 Nos.
90100-00001(AC Power Cable, 220-25-V, 50Hz,2-3 Mtrs	5.00 Nos.
3 Pin, 6amp Card Set for IEC320 Power Inlet PM-OP-40-0001 (Operator Manual, Advent) 70000-00031(Exhalation Cover) 70000-00032(Exhalation	5.00 Nos. 5.00 Nos. 5.00 Nos.
Membrane 70000-00053 (Flow Sensor, Adult)	5.00 Nos.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:42099 CRP No. 546 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ERKADI SYSTEMS	Invoice No.		Dated
PLOT NO.109, 1 PHASE,	124		21-Oc	t-2008
ELECTRONIC CITY HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 100 KARNATAKA, INDIA	Delivery Note		Mode/ Payme On del	Terms of nt ivery
TEL:9180 2852 2442/3 FAX:91 80 2852 2441 [email protected]	Supplier’s Ref. 124/ES/001/2110/0 09 dt.21.10.2008	8-	Other Refere Sales Anura	nce(s) Man: g Guptha
Consignee	Buyer’s Order No. 643/2008		Dated 14-Oc	t-2008
A.J.Institute of Medical Sciences	Despatch Docu No.	ment	Dated
Kuntikana Mangalore-575 004	Despatch through By Hand		Destin Manga	ation lore
Buyer (if other than consignee)	Terms of delivery
A.J.Institute of Medical Sciences Kuntikana Mangalore-575 004
Description of Goods	Quantity Rate	Per	Disc %	Amount
70000-00054(FLOW SENSOR, NEONATE 70000-00034(Breathing Circuit, Adult) 70000-00010(Breathing Circult, Neonatal) 70000-0005 (Test Lung 1 Ltr) 41100-00012 (AD Trolley, MS) 4% Vat (Kst) Payable	5.00 Nos. 5.00 Nos. 5.00 Nos. 5.00 Nos. 5.00 Nos.			96,153.80
Total	70 Nos.			25,00,000.00
Amount chargeable ( in words Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs only Company’s VAT TIN 29600135	) 482			E & O.E
Company’s CST No.90361740 Buyers VAT TIN/Sales Tax No. Declaration 1. Payment on delivery. Bills not 7 days of issue will carry interest month with monthly rests. 2) All should be by cheque or Draft ERKADI SYSTEMS, Bangalore cheques/drafts drawn in bank Bangalore collecting charges ar	paid within @ 2% per payments payable to . For s outside e extra at

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42099 CRP No. 546 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

0.5% minimum Rs.20/-) 3. Our responcibility ceases after materials are delivered to carriers and we are not For ERKADI SYSTEMS responsible for loss, damages in transit or Sd/non-delivery goods once sold will not be taken back. Authorised Signatory

¶40

SUBJECT TO BANGALORE HIGH COURTS JURISDICTION”

¶41

The trial Court rejected the said application on

¶42

contest.

¶43

Being aggrieved by the same, defendant is before

¶44

this Court.

¶45

Sri S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the non-returning of the plaint for presentation before the Bengaluru Court ignoring the aforesaid endorsement on the invoice has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revocation petition.

¶46

Per contra, Sri P.N. Manmohan, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.

¶47

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:42099 CRP No. 546 of 2018

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the parties by volition can invest a jurisdiction in a Court which has got default jurisdiction.

¶52

However, it is well settled principles of law that parties cannot by volition or by contractual terms invest a jurisdiction in a Court which lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute.

¶53

Therefore, in the case on hand, in view of the endorsement, Bengaluru High Court is not having the original jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As such, such an endorsement sought to be relied on by the defendant as is found in invoice cannot be countenanced as in law.

¶54

Therefore, the rejection of the application filed by the defendant by the trial Judge in the impugned order is perfectly justified and requires no interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

¶55