Question

A’, a resident of Mumbai, and ‘B’, a resident of Delhi, enter into an agreement for sale and supply of goods. The transaction takes place partly in Mumbai and partly in Delhi. There is a clause in the agreement which stipulates that in the event of a dispute between ‘A’ and ‘B’, the courts in Kolkata would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute. ‘A’ and ‘B’ agreed to the said clause in order to avoid dispute over choice between the two proper places of jurisdiction- Mumbai and Delhi. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

• A. The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.
• B. The clause relating to jurisdiction is not in restraint of legal proceedings
• C. The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same
• D. The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as its object is lawful
• A. The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings
• B. The clause relating to jurisdiction is void.
• C. The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as ‘A’ and ‘B’ have mutually agreed to the same
• D. The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as courts in Chennai have jurisdiction to decide the dispute
• A. The clause relating to jurisdiction is not valid as it is in restraint of legal proceedings
• B. The clause relating to jurisdiction is not valid as the clause is vague and ambiguous.
• C. The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as they have not restricted the choice of either party regarding choice of jurisdiction
• D. The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as no court’s has been ousted by the clause
• A. Clause 6 is void and Clause 7 is valid.
• B. Clause 6 is valid and Clause 7 is void
• C. Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are valid
• D. Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.
• A. Parties cannot by contract make a choice of jurisdiction.
• B. Parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts.
• C. Parties can by contract confer jurisdiction on any court.
• D. Parties can by contract extinguish their rights under any contract.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct Answer is (A):The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.

Answer 2

This question checks whether choosing a court in a city where neither party transacted, Kolkata, survives Section 28, when Mumbai and Delhi were the two cities that would actually have had proper jurisdiction.

1. Option A: The recognised exception under Section 28 only allows parties to pick one among the courts that would already have jurisdiction over the dispute, here Mumbai or Delhi. Kolkata has no connection to the transaction at all on these facts, so this clause is not narrowing a genuine choice, it is manufacturing jurisdiction in a place that never had it, while at the same time shutting out Mumbai and Delhi, the courts that did have it. That combination is exactly what Section 28 treats as an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings.
2. Option B: Since the clause both excludes the two courts that genuinely had jurisdiction and hands the case to one that had none, it does restrain the parties' access to the courts that could otherwise hear the matter, so saying it is not in restraint of legal proceedings does not fit the facts.
3. Option C: Mutual agreement between A and B is not, on its own, enough to validate a jurisdiction clause. If it were, the exception carved out for choosing among courts that already have jurisdiction would be pointless, since parties could just agree to send any dispute anywhere. The law requires the chosen court to already have jurisdiction, agreement alone cannot supply what is missing.
4. Option D: A lawful overall object to the contract does not immunise a specific clause that separately falls foul of Section 28. The jurisdiction clause has to satisfy its own rule, picking among courts that already have jurisdiction, regardless of how lawful the rest of the contract's purpose is.

Because Kolkata never had any real connection to this dispute, naming it as the exclusive forum both creates jurisdiction where none existed and shuts out the two courts, Mumbai and Delhi, that genuinely did have it, which Section 28 treats as restraining legal proceedings.

So the correct answer is Option A: The clause relating to jurisdiction is in restraint of legal proceedings.

Answer 3

The correct Answer is (D):The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as courts in Chennai have jurisdiction to decide the dispute

Answer 4

This question is the mirror image of a case where the chosen court has no real connection to the dispute, here Chennai genuinely is one of the two places where the transaction actually happened.

1. Option A: The restraint problem arises when a clause shuts out every court that would otherwise have jurisdiction, or hands the case to a court with no connection to the dispute at all. Since Chennai was genuinely one of the two proper places of jurisdiction, picking it does not shut out access to a jurisdictional court, it simply narrows the choice between two courts that both already had jurisdiction, which is the recognised exception, not a restraint.
2. Option B: Calling the clause void ignores that the exception under Section 28 exists precisely for this situation, choosing exclusively between courts that would both otherwise have had jurisdiction over the dispute.
3. Option C: Mutual agreement is present here too, just as it was in the Kolkata example where the clause was still invalid, so mutual agreement by itself cannot be the reason this clause is valid, since the same reasoning would have validated the invalid Kolkata clause as well.
4. Option D: This identifies the actual reason the clause holds up, Chennai is not an arbitrary or unconnected choice, it is one of the two cities where the transaction genuinely took place, so it already had proper jurisdiction over the dispute before the clause was even written. Picking it, to the exclusion of Bengaluru, is exactly the kind of narrowing among genuinely jurisdictional courts that Section 28 permits.

Because Chennai already had a real, independent claim to jurisdiction over this transaction, choosing it exclusively over Bengaluru narrows a genuine choice rather than manufacturing one or ousting every available court.

So the correct answer is Option D: The clause relating to jurisdiction is valid as courts in Chennai have jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

Answer 5

The correct Answer is (A):The clause relating to jurisdiction is not valid as it is in restraint of legal proceedings

Answer 6

This question moves a step further than the earlier jurisdiction clauses, here the parties tried to shut out every dispute resolution route entirely, not just pick between courts.

1. Option A: A clause that stops both parties from ever approaching a court of law, or even using arbitration or any alternative dispute resolution mechanism, is the clearest possible example of restraining legal proceedings. Section 28 voids agreements that absolutely restrict a party from enforcing their rights through the ordinary tribunals, and this clause goes even further than that by blocking every avenue, judicial and otherwise.
2. Option B: The clause is not unclear about what it does, it plainly and specifically bars both court proceedings and any alternative dispute resolution route. Calling it invalid for vagueness misdescribes a clause whose terms are actually quite precise, it fails because of what it does, not because its wording is unclear.
3. Option C: This claims the parties kept some choice of jurisdiction intact, but the clause does not merely restrict choice among courts, it removes access to any court or dispute resolution mechanism altogether, so there is no remaining choice to point to.
4. Option D: Saying no court's jurisdiction has been ousted directly contradicts the facts, the clause expressly rules out approaching any court, along with any ADR mechanism, which is about as complete an ouster of jurisdiction as a clause can attempt.

Blocking both parties from ever going to court or using any alternative dispute resolution method is a complete restraint on enforcing legal rights, which is exactly what Section 28 renders void.

So the correct answer is Option A: The clause relating to jurisdiction is not valid as it is in restraint of legal proceedings.

Answer 7

The correct Answer is (D):Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.

Answer 8

This question tests how courts treat a contractual clause that tries to fix which court will hear a future dispute. Two settled rules apply: first, where more than one court already has jurisdiction over a dispute, parties may agree to restrict litigation to just one of those courts, but only if the clause clearly and exclusively shuts out the others; second, parties cannot hand jurisdiction to a court that has no connection at all with the parties or the transaction, since a private agreement cannot create a power a court does not already possess by law. Applying these two rules to Clause 6 and Clause 7 in turn:

1. Option A (Clause 6 void, Clause 7 valid): This gets Clause 7 backwards. Chennai has no link at all to A, to B, or to the transaction, which took place partly in Ahmedabad and partly in Ranchi. A clause naming a court with no such connection does not merely narrow an existing jurisdiction, it tries to create one, which the law does not allow. So Clause 7 cannot be called valid.
2. Option B (Clause 6 valid, Clause 7 void): This gets Clause 6 wrong. Clause 6 does not actually shut out any court. It leaves both Ahmedabad and Ranchi open, the same two courts that would have had jurisdiction anyway, and it adds alternative dispute resolution as a further option. A clause has to expressly exclude the other competent courts to work as a jurisdiction clause; one that keeps every existing option open does nothing and cannot be treated as a valid, binding restriction.
3. Option C (both valid): This fails for both reasons above. Clause 6 is not a real exclusion of any court, and Clause 7 hands jurisdiction to a forum with no factual connection to the dispute.
4. Option D (both void): Clause 6 does not achieve a valid exclusion of any competent court, so it cannot bind the parties as a jurisdiction clause, and Clause 7 attempts to confer jurisdiction on Chennai despite Chennai having no nexus with the parties or the cause of action. Both clauses therefore fail, for two separate but related reasons.

Clause 6 fails because it does not exclude anything, and Clause 7 fails because it tries to create jurisdiction where none exists. Both defects make the corresponding clause unenforceable.

So the correct answer is (D): Both Clause 6 and Clause 7 are void.

Answer 9

The correct Answer is (B):Parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts.

Answer 10

This question is about how far parties can go when they fix, by contract, which court will decide their disputes. Indian law lets parties narrow down jurisdiction to one among several courts that already have it, but it draws a firm line at completely shutting every court out, since Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 treats an agreement that stops a party from enforcing its rights through the ordinary courts as void. Testing each option against that line:

1. Option A (parties cannot make a choice of jurisdiction): This is too broad. Courts have repeatedly upheld clauses that pick one of several already-competent courts, so a choice of jurisdiction is allowed; what is not allowed is using that choice to leave the parties with no court at all.
2. Option B (parties cannot exclude the jurisdiction of all courts): This matches the settled position. Parties can select among the courts that already have jurisdiction, but an agreement that tries to bar recourse to every court, leaving a party with no forum to enforce a right, is void against the fundamental policy that courts must remain open to litigants.
3. Option C (parties can confer jurisdiction on any court): This overstates party autonomy. A private agreement cannot give a court power over a dispute it would not otherwise have under the ordinary rules of jurisdiction; it can only choose among courts the law already recognises as competent.
4. Option D (parties can extinguish their rights under any contract): This is unrelated to jurisdiction and also inaccurate as a general rule. A contract can settle or waive specific claims, but it cannot be used as a blanket device to wipe out a party's underlying legal rights, and this option does not address the jurisdiction question at all.

Only option B correctly states the limit the law places on jurisdiction clauses: choice among existing courts is fine, total exclusion of every court is not.

So the correct answer is (B): Parties cannot by contract exclude the jurisdiction of all courts.