Counsel

Ask an expert! Legal, accounting and compliance advice from qualified professionals.

Share Details

0/200
0/1500

Your Question has been submitted.

The Counsel team is processing your question and connecting to the best suited professional from the community to have it answered. We’ll get back with an answer shortly.

A is a businessman with a company in Delhi. He was on a vacation in Goa, where he was in a casino and urgently needed some money for the purpose of betting, and took a loan from B for Rs. 1 crore, by the way of a written agreement, and handed over majority shares in his company to B which were to act as a surety in case of default. (To be noted that B ordinarily carries his business and resides in Panaji, Goa.) The loan was given on the following conditions: 1. That either A will return double the amount of loan by the end of that day, or 2. A will have to forfeit his shares in favour of B in case of non-repayment by the end of the day. A loses all that money, and is unable to return the promised money to B by the end of the day. The next day, he meets up with B and requests him to take double the loan amount and to release his shares, but B refuses to do so. A goes back to Delhi, and files a suit in commercial court in Tis Hazari, Delhi. So, my query is, that whether the Delhi court has the jurisdiction to entertain A’s suit or not.

If the agreement is clear about the exclusive jurisdiction clause then the parties are bound by it. exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract as it is evident from the above mentioned discussion that various courts can be competent to try a matter arising out of a contract. Thus to create certainty on the place of the forum in case of a dispute, it ...


View answer

Looking to hire a professional from our handpicked community?

Explore our services, submit your request and let us do the rest for you.

Get started