Exclusive jurisdiction clause valid where Kolkata courts had jurisdiction, excluding Rajasthan High Court from Section 11 proceedings.

Where a contract confines disputes to the courts at Kolkata, that choice can validly exclude another competent court even without the words "alone" or "exclusive" if the intention is clear. The Court applied the principle that parties may select one of several courts having jurisdiction, and such selection impliedly bars the others. Because the Kolkata courts admittedly had territorial jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose there, the forum clause was not hit by Sections 23 or 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Rajasthan High Court was therefore excluded from entertaining the Section 11 application, and jurisdiction lay with the Kolkata courts.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in view of the jurisdiction clause stating that the agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata, the Rajasthan High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The parties had agreed on a jurisdiction clause confining disputes to the courts at Kolkata. Although the clause did not use the words "alone", "only", or "exclusive", those words are not indispensable if the intention to exclude other competent courts is otherwise clear. The Court applied the principle that where more than one court has jurisdiction, the parties may by agreement choose one such court, and the choice of one competent forum implies exclusion of the others. The Court also noted that the courts at Kolkata admittedly had jurisdiction because part of the cause of action arose there. In that situation, the contractual clause was valid and not hit by Sections 23 or 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The Rajasthan High Court's jurisdiction was excluded by the agreement, and the application under Section 11 could not be entertained there. Jurisdiction lay with the courts at Kolkata.

---