<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1983 (3) TMI 257 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156972</link>
    <description>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&#039; agreement choosing Jaipur City as the exclusive forum was effective, and the Allahabad court could not entertain the suit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2014 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 257 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156972</link>
      <description>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&#039; agreement choosing Jaipur City as the exclusive forum was effective, and the Allahabad court could not entertain the suit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>