In S. Manuel Raj – Co. v. J. Manilal – Co., if one of the contracting parties signed an order form printed by the other party with the words “subject to the jurisdiction of La Madras” and had sent the order form to the other party, it was considered that the party could consider that: that Madras was the place of and this was not not for the person who signed the order form of the opponent who contains the words printed to show that the words printed were not part of the contract and that those words were in the contract, exclude the jurisdiction of other jurisdictions and retain the exclusive jurisdiction of a court of law, It was noted that the purpose of printing such words was subject to the “competence of Madras” in the contract , to exclude the jurisdiction of other jurisdictions and a jurisdiction from exclusive jurisdiction, from commercial practice in India. In previous e-bulletins, we have looked at a number of clauses that are often included in commercial contracts, but are often poorly worded and misunderstood. This month, we discuss two more: “current legislation” and “case law.” The Tribunal also argued that the place where the payment is made does not confer jurisdiction on that place and that, therefore, the Courts of Bhubaneswar are not competent to review the dispute. The complainant, as the representative of the shipment to Jaipur, Rajasthan, and the respondent is looking at lubricants, oil and various petroleum products. The parties entered into an agreement in which the applicant was appointed lubricant marketing agent in Jaipur, Rajasthan.
In the meantime, disputes have erupted between the parties over where the agreement was signed. The respondent argues that the agreement was signed in Calcutta, while the applicant intended to be signed in Jaipur. The complainant sent a notice regarding the appointment of the arbitrator and asked the respondent to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days. The respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, so the applicant filed a motion under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Each party to this Agreement unequivocally agrees that the courts of England are not exclusively competent to decide, resolve and/or decide disputes, controversies or claims (including non-contractual disputes, controversies or claims) arising from or related to this Agreement, including matters relating to their existence, validity, formation or termination. To this end, each party submits irrevocably to the jurisdiction of the English courts. As a general rule, a jurisdiction clause provides for either an exclusive or “non-exclusive” jurisdiction. Interpretation of these concepts may vary across legal systems, but overall “exclusive jurisdiction” means that only designated courts have jurisdiction to decide disputes; “Non-exclusive jurisdiction” means that these courts may hear litigation, but the parties are not prevented from bringing an action in other jurisdictions or if they deem it appropriate.
Any agreement by which any party by which it is able to assert its rights in the context or in relation to a contract through the usual judicial procedures, or which limits the time within which it can therefore assert its rights, is therefore null and void.