Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. 27 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam. 2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on business in Ernakulam and the defendant is Larsen & Toubro Ltd., having its Head Office at Bombay and one of its branch offices at Cochin The plaintiff placed an order with the defendant company for the supply of Dry Cleaning Machine. Contract Form No. 5612/ dated 2/6-12-1957 evidences the terms of the contract between the parties. There was some delay in the supply of the machine and the defendant was able to despatch the machine by steamer only on 6-10-1958. The package was cleared by the plaintiff on 5-11-1958. The plaintiff alleges that on unpacking, it was found that the plant supplied was not a new one as contracted for, but a second-hand one. The suit is brought for the damages alleged to have been incurred by the plaintiff on account of the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the purchase of anew dry-cleaning plant at an enormous increase in price and several other allied heads. According to the plaintiff the cause of action has arisen at Cochin where the defendant through their Cochin Branch is carrying on business and where the cause of action arose. 3. The defendant in his written statement raised a preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable in the Ernakulam Court for want of jurisdiction in view of the express provision in the contract note No. 5612 whereby the plaintiff was bound to institute the suit in a court of competent jurisdiction situated in Bombay and nowhere else. By way of reply the plaintiff stated that the contract dated 2/6 -12 -1957 was only a "provisional" one subject to the plaintiff getting the import licence and that the contract had fallen through because the plaintiff informed the defendant that it was not possible for the plaintiff to get the import licence-The plaintiff would contend that the supply of the second-hand plant was in pursuance of a fresh offer made by the defendant on the 28th of April 1958 and accepted by the plaintiff by their letter dated 7th May 1958. Hence the provision contained in the contract note regarding the institution of suits did not apply to the subsequent contract in pursuance of which the plant was supplied & did not act as a prohibition to the institution of the suit in a court of competent jurisdiction where the cause of action arose. The plaintiff had also an alternative contention that even if it is found that the plant was supplied to him in pursuance of contract note No. 5612 the provision regarding suits is void and unenforceable as it offends S.28 of the Contract Act. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge after considering the contract note and the subsequent correspondence between the parties which led to the supply of the plant held that the contract note evidenced the contract as finalised and that the supply of the plant was in pursuance of the said contract and hence the clause in the contract note to the effect that all suits arising out of the contract shall be instituted at Bombay and in no other court is binding on the parties. It is also seen from the order that the alternative contention based on S.28 of the Contract Act was not argued before him. 5. In appeal both the objections are raised though there is no statement in the appeal memo challenging the correctness of the reference in the judgment to the fact that the 2nd objection was not argued. 6. The first point for determination is whether the contract note No. 5612 dated 2/6-12-1957 which is marked Ext. P-1 is the contract as finalised and whether it was in pursuance of that contract that the plant was actually supplied. Ext. P-1 gives the description of the plant, and the accessories to be supplied, the price of it, the place where it was to be delivered, the mode of transport etc. There is a condition in the contract that the import licence has to be furnished by the buyer. The plaintiff has no case that there was any variation in any of the terms of that contract. Consequent on the failure of the plaintiff to obtain the licence and the delay in supplying the machine further correspondence passed between the parties. Ext. P-2 is a letter written by the Cochin Branch of the defendant company to the plaintiff dated 28th April, 1959. Consequent on the failure of the plaintiff to obtain the licence and the delay in supplying the machine further correspondence passed between the parties. Ext. P-2 is a letter written by the Cochin Branch of the defendant company to the plaintiff dated 28th April, 1959. It reads as follows: "We invite your reference to your provisional order, covered by Contract Note No. 5612 dated 6-12-1957, for one No. GEM white Spirit Dry Cleaning Plant. Since at the time of your order we had no stock of there machines nor any licence to import same, we requested you to provide us with the necessary Actual User's Licence, for which we hope you have already applied. We have now pleasure to advise you that our Bombay office have received, one of the above machines for their stocks which we shall be pleased to offer you subject to prior sale, against your above order. Please therefore confirm your order by return and also send us an advance equal to 1/3rd value of the order, to enable us to request our Bombay Office to despatch the machine to you. As we have only one machine in stock, for which we have already serious enquiries and in view of the present import licence difficulties, we would request you to send us your reply by return. Thanking you and assuring you of our best services." Ext. D1 is the reply of the plaintiff dated 7th May 1958 to the above letter. It is to the following effect: "We are in receipt of your letter No. IDT: B: 17:164 of 28th ult. We hereby confirm our order, covered by contract No. 5612 dated 6-12-1957 for one Gem White Spirit Dry Cleaning Plant and send you herewith our cheque No. 762800 of date for Rs. 1000/- being advance against the above order. Please acknowledge receipt and arrange for early shipment". Ext. D-2 is the letter written by the Madras Branch of the defendant company to the plaintiff on May 9, 1958 in reply to Ext. D-1. That letter reads thus: "We thank you for your letter dated 7th May 1958 confirming the order for the above together with cheque No. 762800 for Rs. 1000/-. As desired by you we have advised our Bombay office to ship the plant to Cochin Port by the first available steamer and shall forward the documents through the Cochin Commercial Bank Ltd., Ernakulam". 1000/-. As desired by you we have advised our Bombay office to ship the plant to Cochin Port by the first available steamer and shall forward the documents through the Cochin Commercial Bank Ltd., Ernakulam". The plaintiff's case that the original contract was only a "provisional one" is based mainly on the reference made in Ext. P-2 to Ext. P-1 as a "provisional order". No such inference is possible as Ext. P2 as well as Ext. D1 reply sent by the plaintiff to Ext. P-2 makes it absolutely clear that the supply was to be made in pursuance of the original order. It is specifically stated in Ext. P-2 that the defendant is pleased to offer the machine to the plaintiff against the order Covered by contract Note No. 5612 dated 6-12-1957. A reading of Ext. D-1 also leaves no room for any doubt. There the plaintiff definitely says that they confirm their order covered by contract note No. 5612 dated 2/6-12-1957 for the plant and sent them Rs. 1000/- by cheque being advance against that order. Even the suit notice issued on the 27th December 1958 by the plaintiff's advocate to the defendant states in unambiguous terms: "I am informed by my clients that they entered into a contract with you on 2-12-1957 for the purchase and sale of one Gem White Spirit Dry Cleaning Plant for Rs. 9500 and that you issued contract note No. C. 5612 dated 2-12-1957 to my client". There is no indication at all of any subsequent contract or the supply of the machine in pursuance of it. We have therefore only to confirm the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the supply of the machine was in pursuance of the contract evidenced by Ext. P1 and that the plaintiff is bound by the terms of that contract. 7. The next question for consideration is whether the agreement contained in Ext. PI to have all suits arising out of the contract filed in Bombay, offends S.28 of the Contract Act. The relevant provisions are contained in Clause.9 and 10 of the terms of business printed on the reverse of Ext. PI. They are: "9. Dispute. 7. The next question for consideration is whether the agreement contained in Ext. PI to have all suits arising out of the contract filed in Bombay, offends S.28 of the Contract Act. The relevant provisions are contained in Clause.9 and 10 of the terms of business printed on the reverse of Ext. PI. They are: "9. Dispute. All disputes must be referred to the Head Office of LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED in Bombay for settlement and no legal proceedings shall be taken to enforce any claim except in a court of competent jurisdiction located within the Municipal limits of Bombay. 10. Jurisdiction. All suits arising out of contracts shall be instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction situated in Bombay and in no other Court". S. 28 of the Contract Act runs thus: "Every agreement by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void to that extent." It is a well-settled proposition of law that "this section has no application when a party agrees not to restrict his right of enforcing his rights in the ordinary tribunals but only agrees to a selection of one of those ordinary tribunals in which ordinarily a suit would be tried. This section, prevents parties from divesting Courts of their inherent jurisdiction, but it does not in any way vitiate an agreement between the parties by which a person who has the choice of the forum agrees to a limitation of that choice or agrees to the curtailment upon him. An agreement to that effect is not hit by the language of this section". In this case Bombay where the Head Office of the defendant company it situated as well as Cochin where the firm has a branch office and where the cause of action arose have both jurisdiction to deal with the suit and the parties were perfectly within their rights in agreeing that the suits should be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction situated in Bombay. Hence the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the Ernakulam Sub Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the order directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court are upheld and the appeal is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.