<?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>2010 (8) TMI 1112 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274962</link>
    <description>The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit due to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the distributorship agreement designating the Italian Court in Milan as the forum for dispute resolution. The court emphasized the enforceability of such clauses unless they contravene public policy. Consequently, the court directed the plaintiff to pursue the action in an appropriate court in Italy, returning the plaint accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2018 15:30:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1112 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274962</link>
      <description>The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit due to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the distributorship agreement designating the Italian Court in Milan as the forum for dispute resolution. The court emphasized the enforceability of such clauses unless they contravene public policy. Consequently, the court directed the plaintiff to pursue the action in an appropriate court in Italy, returning the plaint accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>