M/S SHIV SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD vs PURSIYA JITENDER KUMAR & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~1 (Spl. Bench) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 29.08.2025 + FAO (COMM) 84/2024 M/S SHIV SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr.Kushagra Bansal and Mr.Naman Gari, Advs. versus PURSIYA JITENDER KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Uday Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rajiv Ranjan and Mr.Harish Dasan, Advs. for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.54608/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. REVIEW PET. 412/2025 2. This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of our Judgment dated 03.07.2025, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed, inter alia, observing as under: “19. The above jurisdiction clause in Swastik Gases (supra) and the jurisdiction clause in present case are similar. As Swastik Gases (supra) is a subsequent and larger bench of 3- Judge decision that has considered and explained the 2-Judge bench decisions in A.B.C. Laminart (supra) and R.S.D.V. Finance (supra), the ratio in Swastik Gases (supra) that it is not necessary to use words Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO (COMM) 84/2024 Page 1 of 2 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:01.09.2025 18:42:54 like “alone”, “only”, “exclusive” or “exclusive jurisdiction” whilst providing for jurisdiction clause in the agreement shall be binding. So long as the agreement clearly and unambiguously provides that Courts at one of the places where the cause of action has arisen shall have jurisdiction, that Court alone shall have the jurisdiction.” 3. The present Review Petition has been premised only on the typographical error that has crept in Paragraph 19 of our Judgment, wherein we have referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S.D.V. Finance