Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Courts

Our undertakings for long-term impact are an organic extension of our purpose.

They are to employ our deep knowledge of the law beyond the business, the transaction, the deal. To use the opportunities and skills we possess, to reflect on the culture we’re creating. Individually and collectively, these are our efforts to help shape the thinking of our future generations, and arm them with strategies for true, sustainable growth.

Sep 30, 2019

Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Courts

The Supreme Court, while considering the following clause under the agreement ‘Arbitration shall be under Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Law 1996 and the Venue of Arbitration shall be Bhubaneswar’, on July 25, 2019[1] has held that where the agreement specifies the jurisdiction of the Court at a particular place, only such Court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the parties have intended to exclude the jurisdiction of all other courts. The Court noted that having agreed that the venue of the arbitration will be Bhubaneswar, the intention of the parties was to exclude the jurisdiction of all other Courts. The absence of words like ‘exclusive jurisdiction’, ‘only’, ‘exclusive’ and ‘alone’ was not decisive and does not make any material difference.

[1] Brahmani River Pellets Ltd v. Kamachi Industries Limited, Civil Appeal No. 5850 of 2019 (Supreme Court).

DISCLAIMER

These are the views and opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm. This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal or other advice and you acknowledge that there is no relationship (implied, legal or fiduciary) between you and the author/AZB. AZB does not claim that the article's content or information is accurate, correct or complete, and disclaims all liability for any loss or damage caused through error or omission.