Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2013 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 642 - SUPREME COURTJurisdiction of courts - whether clause 18 of the consignment agency agreement the Calcutta High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the application made by the appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Held that:- The appellant shall be at liberty to pursue its remedy under Section 11in the Calcutta High Court – the intention of the parties is clear and unambiguous that the courts at Kolkata shall have jurisdiction which means that the courts at Kolkata alone shall have jurisdiction - expression of one is the exclusion of another - By making a provision that the agreement is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata the parties have impliedly excluded the jurisdiction of other court - clause like this is not hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act at all - such clause is neither forbidden by law nor it is against the public policy. The jurisdiction clause of an agreement, the absence of words like “alone”, “only”, “exclusive” or “exclusive jurisdiction” is neither decisive nor does it make any material difference in deciding the jurisdiction of a court. The very existence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties to an agreement quite clear and it is not advisable to read such a clause in the agreement like a statute.
|