A clear exclusive-jurisdiction clause must be honored where the chosen court is competent.

The respondent placed Purchase Order No. PO/2018-19/2006 on the appellant.

The purchase order stated: “All disputes are subject to Derabassi Punjab Jurisdiction only”

The appellant contended that Delhi had territorial jurisdiction because its registered office was there and it had received part payment in Delhi.

The Commercial Court rejected the suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The appellant challenged that order under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(a) CPC.

Whether the purchase order’s exclusive jurisdiction clause required the dispute to be brought before the competent court in Derabassi, Punjab, despite the appellant’s assertion that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi

Section 20(c) CPC permits a suit to be filed where part of the cause of action arises, but parties may, by agreement, select one among courts that otherwise have jurisdiction.

Under A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, a clear jurisdiction ouster clause should ordinarily be given effect, and terms such as “only” may indicate exclusion of other courts.

The Court also relied on Rajasthan SEB v. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd. and Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P) Ltd. v. Praveen Bhatia for the principle that agreed jurisdiction clauses should ordinarily be enforced.

Under Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., an intention to confer jurisdiction exclusively may be inferred even without words such as “alone” or “exclusive”.

The Court treated the phrase “Derabassi Punjab Jurisdiction only” as clear and unambiguous evidence that the parties intended disputes to be brought in Derabassi.

Applying the cited authorities, it held that the clause excluded other courts, including Delhi.

The appellant’s registered office in Delhi and receipt of part payment there did not displace the parties’ agreed jurisdiction clause.

It directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the appropriate competent court in Punjab, while preserving the appellant’s right to seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The appeal and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.