Question Description
Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide.a)No, he cannot file a suit as the agreement specifies the place of dispute resolution as Delhi.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No. The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide.a)No, he cannot file a suit as the agreement specifies the place of dispute resolution as Delhi.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No. The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide.a)No, he cannot file a suit as the agreement specifies the place of dispute resolution as Delhi.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No. The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide.a)No, he cannot file a suit as the agreement specifies the place of dispute resolution as Delhi.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No. The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide.a)No, he cannot file a suit as the agreement specifies the place of dispute resolution as Delhi.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No. The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide.a)No, he cannot file a suit as the agreement specifies the place of dispute resolution as Delhi.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No. The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide.a)No, he cannot file a suit as the agreement specifies the place of dispute resolution as Delhi.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No. The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide.a)No, he cannot file a suit as the agreement specifies the place of dispute resolution as Delhi.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No. The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide.a)No, he cannot file a suit as the agreement specifies the place of dispute resolution as Delhi.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No. The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.