https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465577 In an employment dispute, an exclusive jurisdiction clause selecting Mumbai was not enforced to exclude the Delhi HC where the employee worked in Delhi, resigned there, and the refusal to relieve him was communicated there; a substantial part of the cause of action arose locally, so the territorial objection failed. The Court also held that the employee was entitled to an ad interim mandatory injunction because no contractual condition required resolution of alleged non-starter cases before release, the employer had accepted resignation-related payments, and withholding the relieving letter caused immediate prejudice by blocking new employment. The employer was directed to issue a relieving letter stating only that the employee was no longer in service. en-us Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465577 In an employment dispute, an exclusive jurisdiction clause selecting Mumbai was not enforced to exclude the Delhi HC where the employee worked in Delhi, resigned there, and the refusal to relieve him was communicated there; a substantial part of the cause of action arose locally, so the territorial objection failed. The Court also held that the employee was entitled to an ad interim mandatory injunction because no contractual condition required resolution of alleged non-starter cases before release, the employer had accepted resignation-related payments, and withholding the relieving letter caused immediate prejudice by blocking new employment. The employer was directed to issue a relieving letter stating only that the employee was no longer in service. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465577