Exclusive jurisdiction clauses are valid when they select one among multiple competent courts and do not create jurisdiction where none exists.

A contractual clause can validly make one of several competent courts the exclusive forum, but it cannot create jurisdiction where none exists. Because the defendant carried on business in Jaipur, the Jaipur court had territorial jurisdiction even though part of the cause of action also arose at Naini. On that basis, the parties' agreement choosing Jaipur City as the exclusive forum was effective, and the Allahabad court could not entertain the suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether a contractual clause confining disputes to the court in Jaipur City validly excluded the jurisdiction of the Allahabad court, and whether the Jaipur court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Analysis: Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that otherwise lacks it. However, where more than one court has jurisdiction, the parties may lawfully choose one forum and exclude the others. The Jaipur court had jurisdiction because the defendant carried on business there, even though part of the cause of action also arose at Naini. Since jurisdiction could be attracted under the provisions governing territorial jurisdiction by reason of the defendant's business activity at Jaipur, the contractual clause selecting Jaipur City as the exclusive forum was effective.

Conclusion: The clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Jaipur court was valid, and the Allahabad court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

---