Take preliminary objection as to jurisdiction of Haryana court

2) mention that as per contract it was mentioned that disputes would b esubject to jurisdiction of courts at Mumbai only

When cause of action may arise at more than one places then the aprties may agree to fix the jurisdiction at one particular place.

So in your case since he agreed to limit the place of jurisdiction to Mumbai only he can not resile from it and invoke jurisdiction in Haryana.

If he does not you can file petition for return/rejection of plaint.

As per the contract the jurisdiction of the court is Mumbai .So you can raise objection against the jurisdiction of the case at Harayan court . In the civil suit he must pay the court fee .Court fee of 45 lakhs approximately 4,50,000.

Yes, depositing of court fees s mandatory if any suit for recovery of money is initiated.

1. Nothing stops him from filing the case in the competent court in Haryana but in your defence you can state that the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute vests in only courts in Mumbai.

2. If he files a civil suit for recovery he will have to pay ad valorem court fee thereon.

1) before filing case no money is to be deposited in court

2)in case you file summary suit and you have strong prima facie case on merits court would direct defendant to deposit X amount in court to defend the case

If the word "only" is mention in Jurisdiction Clause then the matter can not be win in Haryana Court, as per the contract the matter shall be decided by the Mumbai Court.

he has to pay an amount of Rs. 1,76,000/- for the claim of Rs. 45 lacs. in Haryana Court

Rs. 67230/- in Maharshtra Court for 45 Lacs

Read section 19 & 20 of CPC for the Jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

Feel Free to Call

If there is a mention about the jurisdictional limits for all the disputes and the same was agreed in the contract, then even if files a case in Haryana, you can get it discharged on the same grounds by filing a petition seeking to dismiss the case on the said grounds.

It is not open to the parties to confer by their agreement jurisdiction on a court which it does not possess under the Code. But where two courts or more have under the Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction to try a suit or a proceeding, an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such courts is not contrary to public policy.

When the court has to decide the question of jurisdiction pursuant to an ouster clause it is necessary to construe the ousting expression or clause properly.

When the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like 'alone', 'only', 'executive' and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' expression of one is that exclusion of another may be applied.

In any suit demanding an amount, the plaintiff has to pay the expropriate court fee.

The court fee will depend on the suit filed.

The court fee differs from one state to another across the country.

There is no requirement to deposit any percentage of amount towards the claim amount.