All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  It is a well settled principle of contract la... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?
  • a)
    The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.
  • b)
    The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.
  • c)
    The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.
  • d)
    The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
It is a well settled principle of contract law that parties cannot by ...
Explanation:

Validity of the Jurisdiction Clause:
- The clause in the agreement, which stipulates that the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes, is in restraint of legal proceedings.
- According to Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, agreements that restrict parties from enforcing their rights under a contract through legal proceedings are considered void.
- In this case, by conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts in Kolkata, the parties are limiting their ability to seek legal redress in courts where the transaction actually took place (Mumbai and Delhi).
- Therefore, the clause is not valid as it restricts the parties' rights to choose a proper forum for resolving disputes.

Importance of Jurisdiction:
- Jurisdiction plays a crucial role in determining which court has the authority to hear and decide a case.
- Parties should carefully consider the jurisdiction clause in their contracts to ensure that it does not unduly restrict their legal rights.

Conclusion:
- In the given scenario, the clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts in Kolkata is in restraint of legal proceedings and thus, invalid. Parties should avoid such clauses that limit their access to justice and the appropriate forums for dispute resolution.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The primary objective of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, (“MSME Act”) is to facilitate the promotion and development and enhance the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. The MSME Act contains provisions for dispute resolution which are applicable to disputes involving suppliers. Section 18 of the MSME Act provides that any party with a dispute regarding amount due to a Supplier may make a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council (“Council”) for conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the Council may either take up the dispute itself for arbitration or refer the parties to an arbitral institution. Section 18(4) further provides that the Council or center providing the alternative dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute between the Supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.Section 18 became contentious when multiple cases arose where a party involved in a dispute with a Supplier filed proceedings in court challenging its applicability to their dispute in light of the arbitration agreement entered between the parties. In general, presence of an arbitration agreement would not invalidate arbitration proceedings that have been initiated under the MSME Act, since the MSME Act is a special statute which would override any agreement between the parties. This position was also upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in those cases, the Supplier had initiated proceedings under section 18 of the MSME Act before the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement. These cases did not deal with a scenario where the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement where there was no reference of a dispute to the Council. For such situations, it has been held that, if the intention of section 18(4) of the MSME Act was to create a legal bar on a party who has a contract with a Supplier under the MSME Act from invoking section 11 of the Arbitration Act, then the legislature would have expressly provided that the MSME Act overrides any arbitration agreement entered under the MSME Act. Section 18(4) would come into play only in cases where a reference was made to the Council under section 18(1). The Court noted the use of the word “may” in section 18(1) and held that in light of the language used, it cannot be said to be mandatory for a Buyer to refer its dispute to the Council under section 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Council had not yet been invoked, there was nothing barring the court from appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.By making section 18 of the MSME Act directory, Buyers have been given a way out to circumvent the provisions under the MSME Act.Q. Viru Sahastrabuddhi entered into an agreement with Ranchordas Chachand for supply of laboratory equipment. The agreement document had an arbitration clause stating that in a situation of dispute arising during the transaction, the parties would resort to arbitral proceedings before initiating an action in the court of law. The dispute arose between the parties regarding the untimely supply of the equipment and delayed payment made by Viru Sahastrabuddhi. Ranchordas filed a petition under the MSME Act stating that the facilitation council should adjudicate over the matter before proceeding to the arbitration. On the basis of reading of the passage, determine the maintainability of the pleadings made by Mr. Chachand.

Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given beside.Compoundable offences are those offences where, the complainant picks up the thrown gauntlet and enters into a compromise and agrees to have the charges dropped against the accused. However, the cardinal caveat is that such a compromise ought to be visited with "bonafides" and cannot stem out of illegal benefits to which the complainant is not entitled to. The Code vide Section 320 contemplates compounding of certain offences enumerated in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). Compounding of offences has legislatively been bifurcated in two broad categories i.e. compounding of offences without the permission of the Court and compounding of offences with the permission of the Court. The offences that dispense with the blessings of the Court or do not require court of law are of comparatively diminished magnitude such as offences under Sections 298,491,500,501 etc. of the IPC. The offences that require the strike of the gavel i.e court of law are offences such as Sections 325,406,420,494 etc. of the IPC. For example Grievous hurt cases require Compounding to be done by Court of Law. Where the accused is made a party to the proceedings of compounding an offence in which the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court, there is statutorily no requirement for him to incur expenses to come and appear in the compounding proceedings. The common practice of featuring the accused in the memo of parties is a dispensable step which when dispensed with not only would expedite the Court proceedings but would also be in consonance with the intention of the legislature. The effect of compounding of an offence is fundamentally a withdrawal of the charges pressed against the accused. Let us extend this analogy further, all other proceedings such as withdrawal of a suit, withdrawal of a Special Leave Petition, withdrawal of an application, do not contemplate the other party being made part of the withdrawal proceedings and the withdrawal is proceeded with simplicitor. The said practice is not only unnecessary given that the statutory scheme but is also an inconvenience to the accused who in manner of speaking "has paid all his debts". Extracted from Compounding Of Offences: Is The Accused Invited To The "Party" - Crime - India (mondaq.com).Q.Indias airport authorities has began issuing passports exclusively to people who state in their affidavits that they do not currently have any criminal accusations pending against them. When Amandeep singh Khair and a neighbor fought, the incident was reported to the local police department and later compounded at the courts request. Because the victim has subsequently gone to the high court and the matter is still pending, the airport authority has refused to grant a passport. decide whether the AAIs action is valid?

The doctrine of res judicata requires that a party should not be allowed to file same matter repeatedly against the other party either in the same court or in other competent court and that the decision given by one court should be accepted as final subject to any appeal, revision or review. The doctrine is founded on the principle that it is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should be attached to the binding decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. This apart, the object of the doctrine is to ensure that ultimately there should be an end to litigation. Doctrine of res judicata is embodied in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 which governs the procedure to be followed in civil matters. Section 11 is inapplicable to writ jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has observed that though the rule is technical in nature yet the general doctrine of res judicata is based on public policy and therefore, it cannot be treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even in dealing with fundamental rights in petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India . The court observed that if a writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is considered on merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed in appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution of India. It would not be open to a party to ignore the judgment of the High Court and move Supreme Court under Article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed in the High Court under Article 226 is dismissed but not on the merits, then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32 , however if the petition is dismissed without passing a speaking order, then such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata .Q.Which of the following is correct?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.b)The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.c)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.d)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.b)The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.c)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.d)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.b)The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.c)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.d)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.b)The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.c)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.d)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.b)The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.c)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.d)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.b)The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.c)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.d)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.b)The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.c)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.d)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.b)The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.c)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.d)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.b)The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.c)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.d)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction - Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?a)The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.b)The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings.c)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same.d)The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup