https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200591 Where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code, parties may validly choose one forum only by clear agreement, and exclusion of another court cannot be inferred from ambiguous terms or unilateral recitals. A printed jurisdiction clause on the defendant's purchase order, without the plaintiff's assent, did not amount to a binding exclusive forum agreement. The alleged supporting letter was not proved to have been duly sent or received, and no presumption of receipt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act arose on the facts. As the cause of action arose within Keonjhar and no effective Calcutta-only clause was established, the Keonjhar court retained territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. en-us Fri, 09 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2018 15:37:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200591 Where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code, parties may validly choose one forum only by clear agreement, and exclusion of another court cannot be inferred from ambiguous terms or unilateral recitals. A printed jurisdiction clause on the defendant's purchase order, without the plaintiff's assent, did not amount to a binding exclusive forum agreement. The alleged supporting letter was not proved to have been duly sent or received, and no presumption of receipt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act arose on the facts. As the cause of action arose within Keonjhar and no effective Calcutta-only clause was established, the Keonjhar court retained territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200591