Gulzar Impex Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Mediderma, S.L. & Anr

Delhi High Court · 21 Jan 2015 · 2015:DHC:650
Hima Kohli
CS(OS) 183/2015
2015:DHC:650
civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a suit challenging termination of a distribution agreement due to an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on Spanish courts.

Full Text
Translation output
CS(OS) 183/2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 183/2015 & IAs No.1395-96/2015
Date of Decision: 21.01.2015 IN THE MATTER OF:
GULZAR IMPEX PVT LTD & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through : Mr. Shahid Azad with Md. Aslam, Advocates
VERSUS
MEDIDERMA,S.L. & ANR ..... Defendants
Through : None.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)
JUDGMENT

1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs praying inter alia for a decree of declaration against the defendants No.1 & 2 by declaring the Termination of Distribution Agreement dated 29.12.2014 as null and void and further, for a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants No.1 & 2 companies, both situated in Spain.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has been requested to address arguments on the maintainability of the present suit in this Court in view of the stipulations contained in Article 16 of the 2015:DHC:650 CS(OS) 183/2015 Distribution Agreement dated 23.11.2012 executed by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1, which is reproduced as below: “ARTICLE 16 – APPLICABLE LAW AND RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Spain without regard to the conflicts of law provisions thereto. Each party irrevocably consists to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Spanish courts for all issues arising under or in connection with this Agreement.”

3. After addressing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the plaintiffs seeks leave to withdraw the present suit, while reserving the right of his clients to approach the competent court vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the disputes raised in the present suit.

4. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The suit is dismissed as withdrawn, along with the pending applications. (HIMA KOHLI) JANUARY 21, 2015 JUDGE sk/mk