Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.97 seconds)
Rishi Raj vs M/S Orly S Film Productions on 6 January, 2024 cites

M/S Swastik Gases Pvt Ltd vs Indian Oil Corp Ltd on 13 October, 2011

Rishi Raj Vs. M/s. Orly S Film Production, CS (COMM) No. 1079/2020 Judgment dated 06.01.2024 Page No. 45 of 49 (45) Further, in the case of Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported in VI (2013) SLT 529 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the very fact that the ouster clause is included in the agreement between the parties conveys their clear intention to exclude the jurisdiction of Courts other than those mentioned in the concerned clause. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 103 - P S Asopa - Full Document

Shree Rajmoti Industries vs Rajmoti Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 2 November, 2004

(47) The ouster clause in the agreements in question is clear, unambiguous and specific and would bind the parties. Both the parties have bound themselves by way an agreement which confer the jurisdiction to Mumbai Courts only. Once the parties have bound themselves with the agreements, it is not open to them to choose the territorial jurisdiction of their own. The very existence of the jurisdiction clause in the agreements in question makes the intention of the parties quite clear. (48) In so far as the judgments in the case of Shree Rajmoti Industries Vs. Rajmoti Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) and SAP Aktiengesellschaft & Ors. Vs. Varehouse Infotech (Supra) relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff are concerned, I may note that the same do not apply to the facts of the present Rishi Raj Vs. M/s. Orly S Film Production, CS (COMM) No. 1079/2020 Judgment dated 06.01.2024 Page No. 47 of 49 case since in both the cases there was no specific jurisdiction clause between the parties. No doubt, this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present case in view of the provisions of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, but for the fact that the parties have bound themselves with the agreements in question which provide for the jurisdiction of Mumbai Courts only.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 11 - M Mudgal - Full Document

Sap Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. vs M/S. Varehouse Infotech on 19 November, 2009

(47) The ouster clause in the agreements in question is clear, unambiguous and specific and would bind the parties. Both the parties have bound themselves by way an agreement which confer the jurisdiction to Mumbai Courts only. Once the parties have bound themselves with the agreements, it is not open to them to choose the territorial jurisdiction of their own. The very existence of the jurisdiction clause in the agreements in question makes the intention of the parties quite clear. (48) In so far as the judgments in the case of Shree Rajmoti Industries Vs. Rajmoti Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) and SAP Aktiengesellschaft & Ors. Vs. Varehouse Infotech (Supra) relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff are concerned, I may note that the same do not apply to the facts of the present Rishi Raj Vs. M/s. Orly S Film Production, CS (COMM) No. 1079/2020 Judgment dated 06.01.2024 Page No. 47 of 49 case since in both the cases there was no specific jurisdiction clause between the parties. No doubt, this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present case in view of the provisions of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, but for the fact that the parties have bound themselves with the agreements in question which provide for the jurisdiction of Mumbai Courts only.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document
1