The incorporation of an “arbitration clause” in an agreement or contract may result in the exclusion of the jurisdiction of civil courts. The “public policy” requires that every dispute must be redressed and in no case it should remain undecided. It also mandates that there should not be “multiplicity of suits” and the same cause of action should not be agitated again and again. Thus, the same dispute must be either redressed by the normal “civil justice system” or through the “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR) mechanism. At the same time, it is not open to the parties to confer by their agreement jurisdiction on a court which it does not possess under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Code). But where two courts or more have under the Code jurisdiction to try a suit or a proceeding, an agreement between the parties that the disputes between them shall be tried in one of such courts is not contrary to public policy and that such an agreement does not contravene Section 28 of the Contract Act . 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. Often the stipulation is that the contract shall be deemed to have been made at a particular place. This would provide the connecting factor for jurisdiction to the courts of that place in the matter of any dispute on or arising out of that contract. It would not, however, ipso facto take away jurisdiction of other courts. Where an ouster clause occurs, it is pertinent to see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction of other courts. 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 ouster clause when words like 'alone', 'only', 'exclusive' and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusion alterius' expression of one is the exclusion of another may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed . This view has been upheld in Angile Insulation v Davy Ashmore India Ltd .

For complete article, kindly see  http://praveendalal.blogspot.com/2005/06/jurisdictional-issues-of-arbitration.html