Question Description
It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action. Section 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void-Every agreement, -(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.Q.‘A’, a resident of Ahmedabad, and ‘B’, a resident of Ranchi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ within six months of the entering into contr act, they can approach a court in either Ahmedabad or Ranchi (as both are proper places of jurisdiction), or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ af ter the expiry of six months of entering into contract, the courts in Chennai would have exclusivejurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.b)Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.c)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.d)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action. Section 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void-Every agreement, -(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.Q.‘A’, a resident of Ahmedabad, and ‘B’, a resident of Ranchi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ within six months of the entering into contr act, they can approach a court in either Ahmedabad or Ranchi (as both are proper places of jurisdiction), or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ af ter the expiry of six months of entering into contract, the courts in Chennai would have exclusivejurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.b)Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.c)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.d)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action. Section 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void-Every agreement, -(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.Q.‘A’, a resident of Ahmedabad, and ‘B’, a resident of Ranchi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ within six months of the entering into contr act, they can approach a court in either Ahmedabad or Ranchi (as both are proper places of jurisdiction), or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ af ter the expiry of six months of entering into contract, the courts in Chennai would have exclusivejurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.b)Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.c)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.d)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action. Section 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void-Every agreement, -(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.Q.‘A’, a resident of Ahmedabad, and ‘B’, a resident of Ranchi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ within six months of the entering into contr act, they can approach a court in either Ahmedabad or Ranchi (as both are proper places of jurisdiction), or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ af ter the expiry of six months of entering into contract, the courts in Chennai would have exclusivejurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.b)Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.c)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.d)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action. Section 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void-Every agreement, -(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.Q.‘A’, a resident of Ahmedabad, and ‘B’, a resident of Ranchi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ within six months of the entering into contr act, they can approach a court in either Ahmedabad or Ranchi (as both are proper places of jurisdiction), or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ af ter the expiry of six months of entering into contract, the courts in Chennai would have exclusivejurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.b)Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.c)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.d)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action. Section 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void-Every agreement, -(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.Q.‘A’, a resident of Ahmedabad, and ‘B’, a resident of Ranchi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ within six months of the entering into contr act, they can approach a court in either Ahmedabad or Ranchi (as both are proper places of jurisdiction), or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ af ter the expiry of six months of entering into contract, the courts in Chennai would have exclusivejurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.b)Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.c)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.d)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action. Section 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void-Every agreement, -(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.Q.‘A’, a resident of Ahmedabad, and ‘B’, a resident of Ranchi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ within six months of the entering into contr act, they can approach a court in either Ahmedabad or Ranchi (as both are proper places of jurisdiction), or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ af ter the expiry of six months of entering into contract, the courts in Chennai would have exclusivejurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.b)Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.c)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.d)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action. Section 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void-Every agreement, -(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.Q.‘A’, a resident of Ahmedabad, and ‘B’, a resident of Ranchi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ within six months of the entering into contr act, they can approach a court in either Ahmedabad or Ranchi (as both are proper places of jurisdiction), or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ af ter the expiry of six months of entering into contract, the courts in Chennai would have exclusivejurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.b)Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.c)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.d)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract would constitute an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings and contravene Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, where parties to a contract confer jurisdiction on one amongst multiple courts having proper jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, the parties cannot be said to have ousted the jurisdiction of all courts. Such a contract is valid and will bind the parties to a civil action. Section 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void-Every agreement, -(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto, from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate. But where several courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, they can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusively before one of the several courts, to the exclusion of the others.Q.‘A’, a resident of Ahmedabad, and ‘B’, a resident of Ranchi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ within six months of the entering into contr act, they can approach a court in either Ahmedabad or Ranchi (as both are proper places of jurisdiction), or take recourse to any alternative dispute resolution mechanism to settle the dispute. Clause 7 of the agreement stipulates that in the event of a dispute arising between ‘A’ and ‘B’ af ter the expiry of six months of entering into contract, the courts in Chennai would have exclusivejurisdiction to decide the dispute. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.b)Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void.c)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid.d)Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.