• Today: January 10, 2026

Hakam Singh v. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd (1971)

01 January, 1970
11351
Hakam Singh v. Gammon India (1971) — Section 20 CPC & Exclusive Jurisdiction Explained

Hakam Singh v. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd (1971)

1971 Supreme Court of India 2-Judge Bench Section 20 CPC Civil Procedure ~5 min read
```
Author: Gulzar Hashmi India Published: 20-Feb-2025
Illustration for Hakam Singh v. Gammon India jurisdiction clause
Tags
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) Section 20 Forum Selection Arbitration

CASE_TITLE: Hakam Singh v. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd (1971)
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Hakam Singh v. Gammon India; Section 20 CPC; Exclusive Jurisdiction
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Arbitration Act 1940; Explanation II; Bombay Courts; Forum Clause
PUBLISH_DATE: 20-Feb-2025
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Slug: hakam-singh-v-ms-gammon-india-ltd-1971


Quick Summary

This case explains a simple rule: you cannot give a court power it does not have. But if the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) allows more than one court to hear a case, the parties may choose one of those courts by agreement. The Supreme Court said the Bombay courts could hear the dispute and the agreement picking Bombay was valid.

Bench: Justice J.C. Shah & Justice K.S. Hegde

Issues

  • Do the Bombay courts alone have jurisdiction over the dispute?
  • Does Explanation II to Section 20(a) CPC include companies registered under the Companies Act, or only statutory corporations?

Rules

  • Arbitration Act, 1940 — S.41 CPC applies to arbitration proceedings.
  • CPC — S.20(a) & Explanation II A company can be sued where it has its principal office.
  • Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks it under the CPC.
  • If two or more courts have jurisdiction, parties may pick one by agreement; this is not against Contract Act — S.28.

Facts — Timeline

Timeline image
Timeline of events in Hakam Singh v. Gammon India
5 Oct 1960: Hakam Singh agreed to do construction work for Gammon (India) Ltd., whose principal office was in Bombay.
The contract had Clause 12 (arbitration) and Clause 13 (contract deemed made in Bombay; only Bombay courts would have jurisdiction).
A dispute arose. The appellant filed a petition in the Varanasi court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
The respondent objected: as per Clause 13, only Bombay courts could hear the matter.

Arguments

Appellant (Hakam Singh)

  • Varanasi court should entertain the petition for arbitration.
  • Forum clause should not defeat legal rights under CPC.

Respondent (Gammon India)

  • By contract, Bombay courts only have jurisdiction.
  • Company’s principal office is in Bombay; CPC permits suit there.

Judgment

Judgment concept for Hakam Singh case

The Supreme Court upheld the forum-selection clause. Since the Bombay courts already had jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC (the company’s principal office was there), the agreement selecting Bombay was valid and binding. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio

  • Parties cannot give a court jurisdiction that it does not have under the CPC.
  • When multiple courts have jurisdiction, a clause picking one court is valid and not opposed to public policy or Section 28 of the Contract Act.
  • Corporation” in Explanation II to Section 20 includes Companies Act companies, not just statutory corporations.

Why It Matters

Drafting and litigation often turn on where you can file a case. This judgment gives a clean formula: first check CPC jurisdiction; if more than one court qualifies, a forum clause can narrow it down. It keeps forum choice fair and predictable.

Key Takeaways

  • Forum clause is valid only among courts that already have CPC jurisdiction.
  • Explanation II: companies can be sued where their principal office is located.
  • Section 41, Arbitration Act brings the CPC into arbitration proceedings.
  • Clause selecting Bombay courts in this case was enforceable; appeal dismissed.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: BOMBoth courts OK, One chosen, Must be valid.”

  1. Check CPC: Does more than one court have power?
  2. Read the Clause: Does it pick one of those courts?
  3. Enforce: If yes, the clause stands; if not, it fails.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Validity of a clause selecting Bombay courts only and scope of Explanation II to Section 20(a) CPC.

Rule

CPC Section 20 & Explanation II; Contract Act Section 28; Arbitration Act Section 41.

Application

Company’s principal office is in Bombay; thus Bombay courts have jurisdiction under CPC. The clause chooses one of the competent courts—so it is valid.

Conclusion

Forum clause enforced; appeal dismissed with costs.

Glossary

Jurisdiction
A court’s legal power to hear a case.
Forum-Selection Clause
A contract term that chooses a specific court among competent courts.
Principal Office
Main office of a company; relevant for Section 20 CPC.

FAQs

Parties cannot create jurisdiction, but they may choose one among courts that already have it under the CPC.

It treats a company like a “corporation,” so it can be sued where its principal office is—here, Bombay.

No. If it selects one among competent courts, it is not void for restraining legal proceedings.

The contract validly chose Bombay courts, which already had CPC jurisdiction. Hence, the Bombay forum controlled.

Section 20 CPC with Explanation II, along with Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
```
Images are illustrative. If available, they load from the case slug path.

Comment

Nothing for now