. Jaipur, but given clause 18 of the agreement, the courts of Calcutta have sole territorial jurisdiction, because the contract defined the jurisdiction of the courts at a given location. The same goes for them. Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh does not have jurisdiction with respect to clause 38 of the floating repurchase agreement in this case. The same applies to the case before us. Return of the. Bringali Village, Tehsil Mukerian, Hoshiarpur District. Given that this is an agreement between the parties to Abohar and as such, the question arises as to whether this forum is competent at the national level. In the aforementioned case, the parties conclude a sales contract concluded in Madras. A clause in the agreement stipulated that in the event of a dispute, arbitration proceedings must be rendered in Mumbai. It has been clarified by the parties that the place for arbitration is Bombay. First, in the correspondence between the parties, the payment agreement was referred to as an ”addendum” and there were also references to ”tri-patriate [sic]” and ”tri-agreements”.
However, on the basis of Indian legal advice, the Hong Kong court held that the second defendant, which is not a party to the MSA, was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction clause contained therein. In addition, it was found that the AMM and the payment agreement were not part of a ”compound transaction” under Indian law and that the payment agreement did not have the effect of modifying or modifying the MSA. In this case, there was an agreement on the shipment of certain materials, the claimant purchased the case concerning the damage caused by the under-delivery of items. In early 2016, the First Applicant and the First Defendant signed a Marketing Service Agreement (MSA) so that the First Plaintiff could provide media services to the First Company. The second accused did not sign the MSA. The jurisdiction clause of the MSA states that the agreement must be governed by the laws of India and that the courts of Bangalore (India) have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes. On April 19, 27, 2017, one of the judges of two Supreme Court judges delivered his judgment in the case of Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v Datawind Innovations Private Limited and Ors.1 and decided that, in cases where the parties included an exclusive jurisdiction clause in an arbitration agreement that designates a given place as the seat of arbitration, the Tribunal, the exclusive jurisdiction to rule on petitions on non-arbitral matters arising from the agreement, to the exclusion of other courts, which falls under the seat of the arbitration. The exclusive jurisdiction clause cannot be presented by one party and cannot be treated as a unilateral agreement, it should be agreed by both parties. In accordance with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (”CPC”), all courts have jurisdiction over all civil actions, unless jurisdiction is expressly or implicitly excluded. . . .
