Law: Contract, Act, 1872

Section: 28

Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 34

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: S.151,O.VII,R.10

(a) Interpretation of document--- ----Forum selection clauses---Dispute resolution---Scope---Forum selection clauses may fall in different categories, depending on intention of parties, as expressed in language of clause---Broadly, it is of two types, i.e., 'exclusive' or 'non-exclusive'---Former requires that disputes arising under contract, or in connection therewith, may be taken exclusively to court specified in clause, while that is not the case with latter---Clauses drafted in language which clearly and unambiguously shows that parties had intended to give exclusive jurisdiction to a particular court are also termed as mandatory clauses---If language is not clear and it cannot be unambiguously determined that intent was to give exclusivity, then such non-exclusive clause is also termed as 'permissive'. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 28---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10---Return of plaint---Jurisdiction of court---Forum selection---Maintainability---Dispute between parties was with regard to utilization of forum selection clause in contract---Defendant company sought return of plaint on grounds that courts situated in Pakistan did not have jurisdiction in the matter---Validity---Upholding sanctity of contractual bargain was pivotal---Court was to give effect to 'exclusive' jurisdiction clauses unless plaintiff was able to discharge heavy burden of satisfying court that circumstances existed, not foreseen at time of execution of contract containing such a clause, that proceedings be allowed in a non-contractual forum---Plain language of 'forum selection clause' was precise, unambiguous and clear and there was no doubt that parties had intended jurisdiction of English courts to be 'exclusive'---Clause covered adjudication of grievances or cause of action disclosed and asserted in plaint---Refusal of instant application would tantamount to enable plaintiff to circumvent binding obligation, which it had undertaken at time of accepting two process letters including forum selection clause contained therein---Parties had also chosen English law as governing law and plaintiff had not raised any ground so as to justify refusal in giving…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492