Laws in India are simple and offer limited freedom for forum selection. The parties cannot decide the choice of court arbitrarily. Personal jurisdiction laws are codified in India. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayWhen the contract specifies the forumIn India, forum selection agreements are applicable only if the forum selected is one of the forums provided for by Indian law in light of the facts. Otherwise no extended agreement is enforceable. To understand this it is necessary to look at two laws, (1) Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and (2) section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code of India. Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 28 "Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings are void) - "Every agreement, - (a) * * *(b) Which extinguishes the rights of any party, or exonerates any party from any liability, to under or in connection with any contract upon the expiry of a fixed period which prevents any party from enforcing its rights, is void to that extent. "Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Section 20 - "Every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (a) The defendant, or each of the defendants if there be more than one, at the time of the owner of the cause, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries out business activities, or works personally for profit; or (b) Any of the defendants, if there be more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on a business, or works personally for profit, provided that in such case or the leave of the Court, or the defendants who do not reside, carry on business, or work personally for profit, as mentioned above, consent to this institution; or(c) The cause of action, in whole or in part, arises". If the contract provides for a court selection agreement on such forum and it is one of the forums provided by law, only then such agreement is enforceable. If the court selection agreement is of the third court, then it is not enforceable. It is common practice for the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of a court to which they would not otherwise be subject. to agree that any dispute arising between them will be resolved by the courts of another country even if both parties are not residents of that country. In such case, having consented to the jurisdiction, you cannot subsequently challenge the binding effect of the judgment The defendant outside the jurisdiction of the country may be deemed to have served on its agent within the jurisdiction, however, the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the court to deal with proceedings beyond its authority. When the contract doesn't. specify the forumFirstly, the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (CP C), applicable throughout India, governs jurisdictional law. The laws in India state that any person shall approach the court of jurisdiction where (1) the other party or the defendant is doing business or in the absence of a place of business, residence or (2) where the cause of action arises. Place of business includes any branch of the business entity. The cause of action arises where the exchange of goods occurred or where the services are to be provided. In India the plaintiff has to choose where he wants to sue the defendant from the options provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, instead of an agreement to the contrary. There is enormous variation in the bases of jurisdiction adopted in different states. Jurisdiction law may be contained in codified statutes, case law,bilateral or multilateral treaties or international conventions. In deciding jurisdiction, in common law states such as Great Britain and the United States where the basis of the law is jurisprudence, courts may consider the doctrine of forum non-convenience or forum non-convenience. Forum convenience can be defined as a court assuming jurisdiction on the basis that the local forum is the appropriate forum for the trial or that the foreign forum is inappropriate. This is a positive doctrine, unlike the doctrine of forum non conveniens which is a negative doctrine that concerns the lapse of jurisdiction. Forum non-convenience can be defined as a general discretion of the court to decline jurisdiction on the basis that the appropriate forum for the trial is abroad or that the local forum is inappropriate. There is no single doctrine of forum convenience or non-convenience. States that have adopted the doctrines have their own versions of them. In exceptional cases such as Quebec and the Netherlands, the doctrine of forum non conveniens is codified in state law. There are states that have not recognized the doctrine of forum convenience or forum non-convenience. There are numerous reasons why they have not adopted the doctrines. The first is the closed system, in which procedural law strictly defines the cases in which courts have jurisdiction, leaving in principle no room for judicial discretion. This is the system found in civil law jurisdictions, but India is an exception to this statement. India, being a common law country, the law of jurisdiction is codified in the Code of Civil Procedure which leaves no room for judicial discretion. But it gives certainty and predictability. Second, in many states forum shopping is not seen as a problem. As in Argentina, the jurisdictional basis normally corresponds to the domicile of the defendant, which prevents people from bringing actions in Argentina who have no connection with the State. In Finland, it is accepted that a person has good reasons if he sues in Finland. In India the jurisdictional basis is the domicile of the defendant in India or the cause of action arises in India. The third is the position of the judges. In civil law countries the power of judges has been limited and has no discretion compared to the wide discretion of judges in common law countries. The fourth is Absence of cases. The fifth concerns constitutional problems, as in Germany, where constitutional provisions prohibit the application of the doctrine of the forum of convenience or non-convenience of the forum. The other situation that jurisdiction law encounters is when the contract contains a forum selection clause. There is a very clear difference between common law jurisdiction and that of other states when it comes to the effect given to an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a foreign state. In common law jurisdiction the court has the power to decline jurisdiction or accept jurisdiction over the dispute, notwithstanding the parties' prior agreement to trial abroad. In other states the waiver of jurisdiction is mandatory or, more fundamentally, the state may not have jurisdiction. When both forum selection clause and choice of law clause are included in the transaction: - If the dispute is raised and the case goes to Indian court, the court will recognize the choice of law clause subject to the legality of the contract according to Indian laws. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring that the contract is not forced and there is no fraud; the object of the contract is legal according to the law.