Exclusive jurisdiction clauses are enforceable when clearly agreed, and Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction on these facts.

An exclusive jurisdiction clause will be enforced where the intention to exclude other courts is clearly expressed or can be gathered by necessary implication, and assent may be shown by conduct. On the facts, the plaintiff's invoices contained clauses conferring jurisdiction only on Raipur or Nagpur, goods were supplied on that basis, and payments were accepted and credited without any later modification of the forum arrangement. No oppression, insurmountable inconvenience, or sufficient cause of action within Calcutta jurisdiction was shown to displace the agreed forum. The Calcutta High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction, and revocation of leave under Clause 12 with removal of the plaint was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit was liable to be rejected and leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 revoked on the ground that the parties had agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on Raipur or Nagpur courts.

Analysis: A forum selection clause is enforceable where the intention to exclude other courts is clearly expressed or can be gathered by necessary implication. Such a clause may be accepted not only by express assent but also by conduct showing that the parties acted upon it. On the facts, the invoices issued by the plaintiff contained clear clauses conferring jurisdiction only on Raipur or Nagpur, the plaintiff supplied goods pursuant to that arrangement, and payments were received and credited without any material showing later modification of the agreed forum. No case of oppression, insurmountable inconvenience, or overwhelming cause of action within the Calcutta jurisdiction was made out to displace the agreed forum.

Conclusion: The exclusive jurisdiction clause was binding and the Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Revocation of leave under Clause 12 and removal of the plaint from the file were justified.

---