https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235484 Where a contract confines disputes to the courts at Kolkata, that choice can validly exclude another competent court even without the words "alone" or "exclusive" if the intention is clear. The Court applied the principle that parties may select one of several courts having jurisdiction, and such selection impliedly bars the others. Because the Kolkata courts admittedly had territorial jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose there, the forum clause was not hit by Sections 23 or 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Rajasthan High Court was therefore excluded from entertaining the Section 11 application, and jurisdiction lay with the Kolkata courts. en-us Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235484 Where a contract confines disputes to the courts at Kolkata, that choice can validly exclude another competent court even without the words "alone" or "exclusive" if the intention is clear. The Court applied the principle that parties may select one of several courts having jurisdiction, and such selection impliedly bars the others. Because the Kolkata courts admittedly had territorial jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose there, the forum clause was not hit by Sections 23 or 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Rajasthan High Court was therefore excluded from entertaining the Section 11 application, and jurisdiction lay with the Kolkata courts. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235484