Forum-selection clauses require clear exclusivity, and writ relief is unavailable where an effective statutory appeal exists.

A contractual forum clause excluding competing jurisdiction must be expressed in clear, exclusive terms; a bare reference to English courts did not oust the Lucknow forum where part of the cause of action arose through the documentation, sanction process and mortgaged property. The court also restated that writ jurisdiction should not be used where an effective statutory appeal exists under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, absent patent lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice. The deposit condition for appeal did not justify bypassing that remedy, and the parties were left to pursue the statutory appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clause conferring jurisdiction on the English courts excluded the jurisdiction of the Lucknow forum where part of the cause of action arose; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Issue (i): Whether the clause conferring jurisdiction on the English courts excluded the jurisdiction of the Lucknow forum where part of the cause of action arose.

Analysis: An agreement may confer exclusive jurisdiction on one of several courts otherwise competent to try the dispute, but exclusion of jurisdiction must be expressed in clear terms. The clause in question did not use words showing that the English courts alone had jurisdiction. The documentation, sanction process, and mortgaged property were all connected with Lucknow, so part of the cause of action arose there.

Conclusion: The clause did not oust the jurisdiction of the Lucknow forum, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction is not normally invoked where an effective statutory appeal is available, especially when no patent lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice is shown. The challenge to jurisdiction having failed, the petitioners were required to pursue the appellate remedy under the Act. The deposit requirement for appeal did not justify bypassing that remedy because waiver or reduction could be sought before the Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternate statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the Tribunal's jurisdiction and declined to interfere under Article 226, leaving the petitioners to pursue the statutory appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple courts have jurisdiction, a contractual forum clause excludes another forum only if it clearly provides for exclusive jurisdiction, and a writ petition will not be entertained when an effective statutory appeal exists and no patent jurisdictional error is shown.

---