Jurists and courts have started giving more and more importance to international trade. Consequently, despite the agreement between the parties to limit the choice of forum for dispute resolution to the court of a particular country, they therefore assessed which of the courts competent to hear the case would be most convenient for the parties to decide on the dispute. The concept of balance of convenience has therefore been projected in the course of international trade and in enforcing the terms of the agreement between the parties. Below are the various jurisprudence showing the development and practice of jurisdictional rules in India. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay A clause in the bill of lading could not override the High Court's order to try the case if it was otherwise justiciable in the Calcutta High Court. At the same time, in the decision it was held that the jurisdiction limitation clause could be invoked in order to request and obtain the stay of the case brought in contravention of the condition. The learned Judge held that it was more convenient to try the suit in Calcutta than in the foreign court and accordingly he could refuse to exercise his discretion to stay the suit. Typically the courts will seek to enforce the contract between the parties in preference to a particular court. This clause could, however, be invoked for the purposes of suspending the proceedings brought in contravention of it. The court had to ascertain whether, taking into account the totality of facts placed before it, the courts mentioned in the bill of lading were the courts of convenience. Applying this principle to the facts of the case before him, it was held that it was more convenient to try the case in Calcutta than in Holland and consequently the court would refuse to exercise the discretion to stay the case. it contained a clause that read: "All claims and disputes arising out of and in connection with this bill of lading shall be adjudicated in the USSR." The court held that there is no clause in the bill of lading that the USSR courts alone have exclusive jurisdiction to try the cases and the courts in India have been excluded from dealing with such disputes. Furthermore, when more than one forum is available to the contracting parties, they are at liberty to choose by mutual agreement one of these forums and such restriction does not fall within the jurisdiction of Article 28. It is perfectly permissible for the court to consider the balance between convenience, interests of justice and similar circumstances, when deciding the question of the jurisdiction of a court in light of a clause of the agreement between the parties choosing one of the numerous courts or forums available to them. Indeed, such consideration is essential in the interest of international trade and commerce for better relations between the countries and peoples of the world. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Customize essayA similar clause, as in the case of the Black Sea steamship UL Lastochkina Odessa, Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic and Anr. v. The Union of India was contained in the agreement between the parties. The court found that the issue rested on the balance between convenience in particular circumstances and the demands of justice.