Indira Banerjee JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. The present appeal raises the issue of whether a private agreement entered into between the Appellant and the second Respondent in the form of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the latter can, by conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at Chennai, oust the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent is as follows:
21. Legal Course
(i) The Federation shall sue and or be sued only in the name of the Hon. Secretary of the Federation.
(ii) Any Suits/Legal actions against the Federation shall be instituted only in the Courts at Chennai, where the Registered Office of All India Chess Federation is situated or at the place where the Secretariat of the All India Chess Federation is functioning.
3. The second Respondent, the All India Chess Federation is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 18601. It is a central governing authority for chess in India. The Appellant is a society registered under the Act of 1860 and was an affiliated member of the second Respondent since 1978. On 25 December 2016, the Central Council of the second Respondent passed a resolution to disaffiliate the Appellant. After the institution of the writ proceedings, the third Respondent has been affiliated by the second Respondent in place of the Appellant.
4. The Appellant had filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution impleading, inter alia the second Respondent. The second Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Bombay High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition on the ground that Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Chennai in disputes involving the second Respondent and any other party to the Constitution and Bye Laws, including the Appellant. The Bombay High Court held that Clause 21 ousted the jurisdiction of all other courts except the courts at Chennai. The High Court held:
...In the facts of the present case when there is existence of Clause 21 which we have adverted to herein above, in our view, the jurisdiction of the other Courts except the Courts at Chennai in respect of any Suits/Legal action which are brought against Respondent No. 2 are ousted...
5. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that:
(i) Article 226 provides a constitutional remedy where fundamental rights or other legal rights are violated or are under a threat of violation;
(ii) Parties cannot by a privately negotiated agreement oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court;
(iii) Whether the writ jurisdiction Under Article 226 should be exercised in the facts of a given case has to be determined by the High Court; and
(iv) In the present case, the High Court has manifestly erred in holding that Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye Laws of the second Respondent creat........