In case if the contention is raised by one of the parties, probably the consumer, that they were not aware or had not been fully informed about the contents of the cash memo, bill, invoice or any, service contract, or whether it had carried any exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction to any particular court does not hold water, as law on the present subject of conferring jurisdiction to the particular court by inserting exclusive jurisdiction clause is valid and as such was very much covered in the case of M/s InterglobeAviation Ltd. However, in the present scenario the parties have a prior agreement to confer the jurisdiction to one particular court, in case of any dispute arises, and since the parties have already agreed to that effect, can one take a roundabout and deny to adhere to it on premise that he is not bound by it? This elucidates that where the breach of contract was done or cause of action arises within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one court that court would be having the jurisdiction to entertain any claim/suit by the aggrieved party. where the breach of contract took place or cause of action arises within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one court.where the defendant voluntarily resides, carries on business, or works for personal gains and.Where there is a breach of contract, Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides for determining the jurisdiction for instituting the suit on two scores, and same are provided as hereunder:.

Seen against this background, let us delve into the issue of whether the 'exclusionary jurisdiction clause' provided in contracts has any legal effect on it or can be enforced as it stands, irrespective of any circumstance that may arise.ДЇactors For Determining Territorial Jurisdiction For Place Of Filing Suit Would it be rational to restrict a person from raising his grievance/claim before a court situated within his territorial jurisdiction merely because some lines, which are not even legible, provide so? Is such a provision of which the person has no knowledge or even no power to bargain is considered valid? Can a clause providing that only courts at a particular place will have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute emanating out of the transaction be legally valid? Are such contracts even valid in the eyes of law? There may be another situation where a company may be registered in Delhi but operating its business in another state through its authorized subordinate branch office, for e.g in Tamil Nadu, whereby B availed the service of the said company through its authorized branch office of Tamil Nadu, however, the invoice priorly stipulates that the courts situated in Delhi only would be having the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, if any.Д¬onsidering all that has been said, it would be not wrong to say that these clauses are couched with much arbitrariness and can be termed as draconian clauses whereby leaving the contract to be an adhesion contract. In another case where A is a company situated in Delhi whereas B resides in Haryana, however, the invoice stipulates that Courts of Delhi only will be having the jurisdiction.

There may be many instances where A is a company situated in Delhi whereas B is a consumer of A's goods and the invoice generated by A's company specifically stipulates that only court in Haryana would have jurisdiction.

United india insurance company limted