<?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>2013 (8) TMI 89 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235794</link>
    <description>A jurisdiction clause making the contract subject to Calcutta courts can operate as an exclusive forum selection clause even without the words &quot;only&quot; or &quot;exclusively&quot; if that intention is clear from the agreement and surrounding circumstances. The plaintiff&#039;s reliance on the place of invoice issuance, its New Delhi registered office, and payment of service tax and education cess did not establish any material part of the cause of action, as those were unilateral or incidental facts. The contract was executed at Kolkata, the defendant was based there, performance was to occur in West Bengal, and the communications and payment obligations pointed to Kolkata. The court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction and the plaint was ordered to be returned for filing before the proper court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 09:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 89 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235794</link>
      <description>A jurisdiction clause making the contract subject to Calcutta courts can operate as an exclusive forum selection clause even without the words &quot;only&quot; or &quot;exclusively&quot; if that intention is clear from the agreement and surrounding circumstances. The plaintiff&#039;s reliance on the place of invoice issuance, its New Delhi registered office, and payment of service tax and education cess did not establish any material part of the cause of action, as those were unilateral or incidental facts. The contract was executed at Kolkata, the defendant was based there, performance was to occur in West Bengal, and the communications and payment obligations pointed to Kolkata. The court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction and the plaint was ordered to be returned for filing before the proper court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>