JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 01.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No. 131 of 2022, wherein Issue No. 10 was treated as a Preliminary Issue, which was pertaining to the issue of territorial jurisdiction that whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and entertain the suit in question. 2. Vide the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge held that only the Courts at Delhi would have exclusive jurisdiction, as the parties had agreed by way of contract enteredby them and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for its presentation before the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff places reliance upon two judgments of the Apex Court, i.e. Union of India & others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. & another, (2002) 1 SCC 567 and Laxman Prasad Vs. Prodigy Electronic Ltd. & another, 2018 (1) SCC 618, to contend that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not justified. 4. It is not disputed that the judgments relied upon now, were also cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge rightly distinguished them. 5. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Adani Exports Ltd. (supra) would go on to show that the Apex Court had allowed the appeals and held that the High Court at Ahmedabad had no territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action arose in territorial jurisdiction of the said High Court. 6. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court held that merely since business of export and import was carried out and that the parties are receiving the export and import orders at Ahmedabad, it had no connection whatsoever with the dispute involved and would not give a cause of action to the Courts at Ahmedabad. It further held that the Designated Authority, who is the competent person in respect of the matters concerning the Pass Book Scheme and who discharges various functions under the Scheme was also stationed at Chennai. It further held that the Designated Authority, who is the competent person in respect of the matters concerning the Pass Book Scheme and who discharges various functions under the Scheme was also stationed at Chennai. It further held that the entries in the pass-book under the concerned Scheme are to be made by the authorities at Chennai and the export of prawn made by the respondents and the import of the inputs benefit of which the respondents are seeking the applications, also would have to be made through the same Port i.e. Chennai. In such circumstances, the matter was transferred to the High Court of Madras at Chennai. Therefore, the said case would be of no assistance to the appellant. 7. Apparently in the present case, the cause of action arose on account of appointment letter issued to the appellant/plaintiff on 4 th October, 2021 to the post of Senior Software Engineer, Department of IT. The location of posting of the plaintiff/appellant was at Bangalore as Senior Software Engineer in IT and the joining of duty was also online on 22.11.2021. The services of the appellant/plaintiff were terminated vide order dated 31.05.2022, which was the subject matter of consideration in the suit in question. 8. Vide order dated 27.05.2024, the learned Single Judge had framed as many as twelve Issues and since an objection had been taken pertaining to jurisdiction, the said issue was treated as a preliminary issue and the matter was listed for consideration and thereafter, the order under challenge was passed on 01.07.2024. 9. The learned Single Judge found that the parties had agreed as such to exclude the jurisdiction of this Court and keep it only at New Delhi as per Clause 9 (c) of the appointment letter dated 04.10.2021. The said clause is reproduced as under : “9(c) You will be liable to pay damages(s) to the company for the loss caused directly or indirectly, in addition to other legal remedies, which may be required for violating any of the provisions of this letter for an offer of appointment/agreement etc. and the Courts at New Delhi will have exclusive jurisdiction over the appointment consequent to this letter and all matters arising therefrom.” 10. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. Vs. and the Courts at New Delhi will have exclusive jurisdiction over the appointment consequent to this letter and all matters arising therefrom.” 10. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163 , in which it was held that it is permissible for the parties to restrict jurisdiction to the Courts located at a particular place provided that it had the jurisdiction in the matter. 11. It is not disputed that the office of the defendant/respondent’s Company is located at New Delhi. 12. Similarly, reliance was also placed by the learned Single Judge upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Rajasthan SEB Vs. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd., (2009) 3 SCC 107 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 770 , in which it was held that the parties can restrict jurisdiction to a particular Court having jurisdiction but cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court which does not have the jurisdiction or completely oust the jurisdiction of the Courts by an agreement. 13. Reliance was also placed by the learned Single Judge upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Maharashtra Chess Assn. Vs. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 285 , in which it was held that where several Courts would have jurisdiction to try the subject matter of the dispute, the parties to the agreement can stipulate that a suit be brought exclusive before one of several Court to the exclusion of the others. 14. The learned Single Judge further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Sanjay Aggarwal Vs. BLCCO Lawrie Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine HP 363. 15. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that merely on account of the fact that the plaintiff was serving out of Himachal Pradesh by way of Online basis and e-mail terminating her services was received on 31.05.2022, would not give jurisdiction to the Court at Shimla. 16. Reliance which had been placed upon Laxman Prasad Vs. Prodigy Electronics Ltd. & another ( supra) also would not help as such the appellant, rather that was a case where the agreement was executed at Hong Kong and it was held that it would not take away the jurisdiction of Delhi Court. In fact, the observations of the Apex Court in British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. VS. Prodigy Electronics Ltd. & another ( supra) also would not help as such the appellant, rather that was a case where the agreement was executed at Hong Kong and it was held that it would not take away the jurisdiction of Delhi Court. In fact, the observations of the Apex Court in British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. VS. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries & others, (1990) 3 SCC 481 in paragraph 24, clinches the issue against the appellant. In the said case, Clause 3 of the Bill of Lading provided that the parties would be governed by English law to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Courts of any other country and, therefore, it was held that proper law to govern the contract was English law. Para-29 of the judgment reads as under:- “29. In the absence of an express choice the question of the proper law of contract would arise. The parties to a contract should be bound by the jurisdiction clause to which they have agreed unless there is some strong reason to the contrary.” 17. When the parties agreed as such that the jurisdiction of the Court was at New Delhi, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was well justified in upholding the objection of the respondent-Company and directing the return of the plaint for its presentation before the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction. 18. In such circumstances, we do not think that any case for interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.