<?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>2018 (12) TMI 1191 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372422</link>
    <description>An exclusive jurisdiction clause will be enforced where the intention to exclude other courts is clearly expressed or can be gathered by necessary implication, and assent may be shown by conduct. On the facts, the plaintiff&#039;s invoices contained clauses conferring jurisdiction only on Raipur or Nagpur, goods were supplied on that basis, and payments were accepted and credited without any later modification of the forum arrangement. No oppression, insurmountable inconvenience, or sufficient cause of action within Calcutta jurisdiction was shown to displace the agreed forum. The Calcutta High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction, and revocation of leave under Clause 12 with removal of the plaint was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2018 07:19:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1191 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372422</link>
      <description>An exclusive jurisdiction clause will be enforced where the intention to exclude other courts is clearly expressed or can be gathered by necessary implication, and assent may be shown by conduct. On the facts, the plaintiff&#039;s invoices contained clauses conferring jurisdiction only on Raipur or Nagpur, goods were supplied on that basis, and payments were accepted and credited without any later modification of the forum arrangement. No oppression, insurmountable inconvenience, or sufficient cause of action within Calcutta jurisdiction was shown to displace the agreed forum. The Calcutta High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction, and revocation of leave under Clause 12 with removal of the plaint was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>