was effected in Delhi by the defendant No. 6; negotiations had taken place in Delhi; Interviews were conducted in Delhi and this would show that part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi, even though, the said aspects have been disputed by defendant No. 3, assuming such, still, in view of the stipulation in the contract, question would arise, whether the parties have agreed to confer jurisdiction on the Courts at Noida. The answer must be yes. If that be so, this Court, would not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The reliance placed by Mr.Pasrich on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein, the Supreme Court was concerned with a case dealing with the commercial contract, where relevant clause of the agreement provided that “any dispute arising out of this sale, shall be subject to Kaira (Gujrat) jurisdiction ”, the Supreme Court held that while connecting factor with Kaira jurisdiction was ensured by fixing the situs of the contract within Kaira, other jurisdictions having connecting factors were not clearly, unambiguously and explicitly excluded; t hat being the position it could not be said that the jurisdiction of the Court at Salem which Court otherwise had jurisdiction under law through connecting factor of delivery of goods there was expressly excluded.
