Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Section 28 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989
Ltd.'s case (supra), inter alia, held that where two
Courts have jurisdiction consequent upon the cause of
action or a part thereof arising therein, if the
parties agree in clear and unambiguous terms to exclude
15
the jurisdiction of the other, the said decision could
not offend the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract
Act. In such a case, the suit would lie in the Court
to be agreed upon by the parties.
Angile Insulations vs Davy Ashmore India Ltd. And Anr on 18 April, 1995
12. A similar view was taken by this Court in Angile
Insulations vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. & Anr. [(1995)
4 SCC 153], wherein the Hon'ble Judges while referring
to the decision of this Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt.
M/S Hanil Era Textiles Ltd vs M/S Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd on 16 April, 2004
13. This Court has consistently taken the same view in
several subsequent cases. We may refer to one such
decision of this Court in Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs.
Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd. [AIR 2004 SC 2432 = (2004) 4
SCC 671], where part of the cause of action arose at
both Delhi and Bombay. This Court held that the mutual
agreement to exclude the jurisdiction of the Delhi
Courts to entertain the suit was not opposed to public
policy and was valid.
1