Abstract

Indian Contract Act 1872's idea of exclusive jurisdiction enables contracting parties to confine their legal actions to a single court. To accomplish this, the contract must contain an "Exclusive Jurisdiction" clause. The standard language for an "exclusive jurisdiction" clause of a contract may read something like this: "The Agreement will be subject to the competence of the courts located at New Delhi." This provision is frequently added for the parties' convenience and to cut down on legal fees. It gives the parties clarity regarding how to obtain contractual breach remedies. Furthermore, the right to legal remedy or the capacity to enforce rights underlying a contract is completely limited by Section 28 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, if Sections 23 & 28 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 are read together with Section 20 in the Civil Procedure Code, which was enacted in 1908, there is room for a partial limitation by limiting the parties' resort to one forum. Respondents' main defence focused on Clause 12 within the Article of Transfer Agreement which states that "in the event of disagreements arising between the parties hereto concerning with any of the provisions or covenants herein, the Courts in Mumbai only shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and try such disputes." However, it was noted that it must be determined if such an agreement is unambiguous and obvious, and whether it is evident from the agreement itself that the parties intended to submit to the jurisdiction of one court while rejecting the jurisdiction of another. The case deals in the matters of Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Contracts and the case validates it through the ‘law’gical reasonings.

Keywords