Exclusive jurisdiction clause upheld where contract and cause of action pointed to Kolkata, not incidental unilateral facts.

A jurisdiction clause making the contract subject to Calcutta courts can operate as an exclusive forum selection clause even without the words "only" or "exclusively" if that intention is clear from the agreement and surrounding circumstances. The plaintiff's reliance on the place of invoice issuance, its New Delhi registered office, and payment of service tax and education cess did not establish any material part of the cause of action, as those were unilateral or incidental facts. The contract was executed at Kolkata, the defendant was based there, performance was to occur in West Bengal, and the communications and payment obligations pointed to Kolkata. The court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction and the plaint was ordered to be returned for filing before the proper court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the jurisdiction clause in the agreement and the pleaded facts said to form part of the cause of action.

Analysis: The agreement provided that it would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Calcutta courts. Even without the words "only", "alone" or "exclusively", such a clause may confer exclusive jurisdiction on one competent court and exclude other forums if that intention is clear from the contract and surrounding circumstances. The plaintiff's reliance on the place from which invoices were raised, its registered office at New Delhi, and the place where service tax and education cess were paid did not establish a material part of the cause of action. Those were unilateral or incidental facts and had no real nexus with the dispute. The contract was executed at Kolkata, the defendant was located there, the work was to be performed in West Bengal, and the relevant communications and payment obligations pointed to Kolkata as the proper forum.

Conclusion: The court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the application for rejection of the plaint on that ground succeeded. The plaint was directed to be returned for presentation before the proper court.

---