The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the parties' agreement on jurisdiction, if clear and unambiguous, should be upheld, and other courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction.

R.S. Dalvi, J.

1. Leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent applied by the plaintiff has been refused in this suit under the order dated 1st September, 2014. The plaintiff however is unduly keen to sue in this Court alone. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff drew the Court's attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239 stating that this judgment was shown to the Division Bench of this Court in another matter of the same plaintiff where leave under Clause 12 granted came to be revoked by this Court and the Division Bench of this Court set aside that order. The order of the Division Bench does not show the Supreme Court's judgment being considered. However it is argued that it was shown to the Division Bench, but has not been mentioned in its order.

2. Be that as it may, since it is a question of law to be adjudicated, the Supreme Court judgment has been considered to see whether under this judgment leave can be granted to the plaintiff to sue in this Court.

3. It may be mentioned that if a given Court is the only Court having territorial jurisdiction the suit has to be filed in that Court alone. A Court where the cause of action has arisen either wholly or where the defendant resides and carries on business would have territorial jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises in such Court only partly the Court must grant leave. Consequently cause of action must arise at least in part for the Court to grant leave to sue in its jurisdiction.

4. In para 12 of the judgment the meaning of the cause of action is given. It means every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to obtain a judgment or relief against the defendant and it must be some act done by the defendant such that in its absence no cause of action would possibly accrue. It is, therefore, all the facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove to obtain a decree and if not proved to give the defendant the right to judgment (i.e. the dismissal of the suit).

5. In the case of A.B.C. Laminart (Supra) the suit was filed for recovery of advances paid for delivery of goods and for damages. The suit was filed in Salem, Tamilnadu. The plaintiff was to be supplied the goods by the defendant who manufactured the goods. The goods were manufactured in Kaira, Gujarat and were to be sent to the plaintiff at Salem. The parties entered into an agreement under which the defendant would supply the goods and the plaintiff paid advances for the goods. The plaintiff had paid advances. The defendant was to supply the goods. Hence the supply would be affected from Kaira and the goods would have to reach Salem. For the supply to be affected the defendant would raise invoices. The plaintiff would pay certain advances. The making of the contract was held to be in Kaira. (This observation is in the penultimate para of the judgment). The agreement provided that the dispute would be subject to Kaira jurisdiction. The plaintiff sued for refund of the advances remaining in the hands of the defendant and damages. The Court was to determine the territorial jurisdiction, the suit having been filed in Salem though the contract showed that it was subject to Kaira jurisdiction.

6. The plaintiff in this suit is a manufacturer and supplier of the suit goods. The plaintiff's manufacturing unit is at Daman, UT. The defendant placed purchase orders upon the plaintiff under which the plaintiff supplied the goods. The purchase orders are addressed to the plaintiff's branch office at Daman. They are stated to have been accepted at Mahim, Mumbai. The goods were to be supplied at New Delhi International Airport. The plaintiff has sued for recovery of the price of the goods supplied.

7. The defendants raised purchase orders from New Delhi upon the plaintiff in Daman. The delivery was to be affected in New Delhi. The purchase orders do not show the Court's jurisdiction. Upon the goods being supplied the plaintiff raised invoic