17. Likewise, in Shriram City [Shriram City Union Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Rama Mishra, (2002) 9 SCC 613], the legal position stated in Hakam Singh [Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 1 SCC 286] was reiterated. In that case, Clause 34 of the lease agreement read, “subject to the provisions of Clause 32 above it is expressly agreed by and between the parties hereinabove that any suit, application and/or any other legal proceedings with regard to any matter, claims, differences and for disputes arising out of this agreement shall be filed and referred to the courts in Calcutta for the purpose of jurisdiction”. This Court held that Clause 34 left no room for doubt that the parties had expressly agreed between themselves that any suit, application or any other legal proceedings with regard to any matter, claim, differences and disputes arising out of this claim shall only be filed in the courts in Calcutta. Whilst drawing difference between inherent lack of jurisdiction of a court on account of some statute and the other where parties through agreement bind themselves to have their dispute decided by any one of the courts having jurisdiction, the Court said: (Shriram City case [Shriram City Union Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Rama Mishra, (2002) 9 SCC 613], SCC pp. 616-17, para 9)
