https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157020 Where part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdictions of both Vijayawada and Calcutta, the parties could by clear agreement choose one competent forum and exclude the other. Because invoices were raised at Vijayawada, goods were dispatched from there, and payment was payable there, while the agreement was made at Calcutta and delivery was to occur there, both courts had jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC. The contractual clause selecting Calcutta did not confer jurisdiction on a court otherwise lacking it and was not hit by Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Calcutta was therefore valid. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157020 Where part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdictions of both Vijayawada and Calcutta, the parties could by clear agreement choose one competent forum and exclude the other. Because invoices were raised at Vijayawada, goods were dispatched from there, and payment was payable there, while the agreement was made at Calcutta and delivery was to occur there, both courts had jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC. The contractual clause selecting Calcutta did not confer jurisdiction on a court otherwise lacking it and was not hit by Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Calcutta was therefore valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157020