Exclusive jurisdiction clause upheld: parties may choose one competent court and exclude others under a lawful agreement.

Where more than one court otherwise has jurisdiction, parties may lawfully agree to submit disputes to one competent forum to the exclusion of others, and such a clause does not offend public policy or Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. On that principle, a suit filed at Bhubaneswar contrary to a contractual stipulation conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Calcutta was not maintainable there, and the objection to territorial jurisdiction succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the parties' agreement conferring jurisdiction on the Courts at Calcutta alone barred the suit instituted at Bhubaneswar.

Analysis: Where more than one court otherwise has jurisdiction, parties may by a lawful agreement choose one among those competent courts to the exclusion of the others. Such a stipulation does not offend public policy or Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The suit filed at Bhubaneswar was contrary to the contractual clause providing that disputes arising from the agreement shall be filed only in the Courts at Calcutta.

Conclusion: The Bhubaneswar court lacked contractual competence to entertain the dispute, and the objection to territorial jurisdiction succeeded in favour of the appellant.

---