1. application for retrial of product quality damage compensation disputes between inner Mongolia jiujun pharmaceutical co., ltd., Shanghai yunzhou commercial building co., ltd. and Han fengbin, Shanghai radio and television station and Dalian Hongyan pharmaceutical co., ltd. [(20 13) min zai Shen zi No.27]
Abstract: For the cases remanded by the Higher People's Court for retrial, China's Civil Procedure Law does not clearly stipulate whether the parties can raise jurisdiction objections. However, according to the principle of unchangeable jurisdiction, if the jurisdiction of the case remanded for retrial has been determined and the parties still raise jurisdiction objections, the people's court will not support it.
2. Huajian Electronics Co., Ltd., Huajian Machine Translation Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Science and Technology Venture Capital Co., Ltd., Xie, Zhang Heping, Huang Ruohao [(20 10) MintiziNo. 10, the Supreme People's Court Gazette No.3, 201].
Abstract: In order to achieve the purpose of cooperation, the two sides signed several contracts, but only one contract stipulated the arbitration clause. After the arbitration award of this contract comes into effect, litigation will be formed due to other contract disputes without arbitration clause. If a party claims that the people's court has no jurisdiction only because the arbitral award has come into effect, the people's court will not support it. The contract on which the effective arbitral award is based is different from the contract on which the people's court handles the disputed case. If the content of the people's court's trial does not involve the matters agreed in the arbitration clause, and one party claims that the people's court will not handle the same matter again on the grounds that it will not handle the same matter again, the people's court will not support it.
3. Alashankou Company v. Ningxia Qin Yi Company [(2005) Min Zi No.94 the Supreme People's Court Gazette No.8, 2005].
Summary of judgment: According to Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Law and the Supreme People's Court's "About Application"
Four. German Asia-Europe Exchange Co., Ltd. and suifenhe city Qingyun Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. [(2006) Min Si Zhong Zi No.8 the Supreme People's Court Gazette No.6, 2007]
If the parties to a foreign-related contract expressly stipulate in the contract that the court in the place where the contract is signed shall exercise jurisdiction, and then sign a supplementary agreement in other places for matters not covered in the contract, but the supplementary agreement does not modify the original jurisdiction clause, the validity of the jurisdiction clause agreed in the contract will not change with the signing of the supplementary agreement, and the contract disputes between the parties shall be under the jurisdiction of the court in the place where the contract is signed.
Verb (abbreviation of verb) China Haohua Chemical (Group) Corporation and China Enterprise International Investment Co., Ltd. [(2006) Min Zhong Er ZiNo. 186, the Supreme People's Court Bulletin No.2, 2007].
Abstract: When concluding a contract, the parties clearly agreed on the competent court to solve possible disputes. Since then, the creditor's rights based on the contract have been transferred many times, but the new creditor has not re-agreed on the court of jurisdiction with the debtor and guarantor, nor has it ruled out the agreement on the court of jurisdiction in the original contract. As long as the original agreement on jurisdiction does not violate the law, it shall be deemed as still valid.
The intransitive verb Hongrun Jinyuan (Xiamen) Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Peng Xiong Soul and Hongrun Group Real Estate Investment Co., Ltd. dispute over the pre-sale contract of commercial housing [(2006) Minyizhongzi No.34 the Supreme People's Court Gazette No.2006 12].
According to the provisions of Article 108 (4) and Article 38 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the objection to jurisdiction refers to the objection raised by the parties to whether the case falls within the scope of acceptance by the people's court or whether it falls under the jurisdiction of the sued people's court. The parties have the right to raise objections to jurisdiction, but if the parties raise objections to jurisdiction on the grounds that they are not qualified defendants, they do not meet the above provisions and do not belong to jurisdictional objections. Whether a party is a qualified defendant shall be determined by the people's court entity.
Seven, XXX and Beijing Second Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. designated jurisdiction over the dispute over the intermediary contract.
Referee's main points: The agreement that "if one party breaches the contract, the other party may bring a lawsuit to the basic people's court or the intermediate people's court where it resides" is invalid.
The Supreme People's Court's handling opinion: The plaintiff in this case wants to stipulate in the information service agreement signed by XXX and the 11th Engineering Office of Beijing No.2 Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. that "if one party breaches the contract, the other party can bring a lawsuit to the grassroots people's court or the intermediate people's court where it lives", which does not conform to the provisions of Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Law, and the jurisdiction clause of this agreement is invalid.
Judge the Supreme People's Court wrote: ... the Supreme People's Court Fa Han [1995] No.89 "Reply on the Jurisdiction of Economic Disputes between Jinli Company and Jinhai Company" holds that Jinli Company and Jinhai Company agreed in the supplementary agreement: "Any dispute between Party A and Party B shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the observant party is located." This agreement does not conform to the provisions of Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Law, and the provisions applicable to this agreement shall be deemed invalid. The choice of jurisdiction clause in this case conforms to the reply, and the choice of jurisdiction clause in this case shall be deemed invalid.
—— the Supreme People's Court Filing Court: Guiding Opinions on Filing, No.4, 20 10, People's Court Press, 20 1 1, p.32.
Eight, Jiangsu Huaxing Construction Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Xiangtan Concrete Co., Ltd. designated jurisdiction over the dispute over the sale contract.
Referee's main points: It is stipulated in the contract that "both parties can bring a lawsuit to the local court", which should be regarded as choosing the jurisdiction of the court where the plaintiff has his domicile.
The Supreme People's Court's handling opinion: the case of dispute between Huaxing Company and Jiulong Company accepted by Taizhou Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province and the case of Jiulong Company v. Huaxing Company accepted by Xiangtan County People's Court of Hunan Province belong to the jurisdiction dispute cases caused by the parties suing their respective domiciles with different opinions based on the same legal relationship and the same legal fact, and should be tried together according to law.
Introduction: Huaxing Company and Jiulong Company agreed in the contract that any dispute should be settled through friendly negotiation. If no agreement can be reached, both the supplier and the buyer can bring a lawsuit in the local court. The agreement does not violate the provisions of Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Law, and shall be deemed valid. According to the agreement, both parties can bring a lawsuit to the local court as plaintiffs. Therefore, the courts in Hunan and Jiangsu have jurisdiction over this case.
—— the Supreme People's Court Filing Court: Guidance on Filing, No.3, 2009, People's Court Press, 20 10, p.50.
Nine. Beijing Zhiyang Weibo Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. v. Chuangsi Biotechnology Engineering (Dongguan) Co., Ltd. and Kaifeng City Administration Bureau of Henan Province [(2008) Shen Min ZiNo. 1364 the Supreme People's Court Gazette No.7, 2009].
Summary of judgment: 1. The plaintiff in a civil action lists multiple defendants. Because a defendant's domicile is within the jurisdiction of the people's court that accepts the case, the people's court that accepts the case can determine the jurisdiction according to the defendant's domicile. If other defendants think that the people's court that accepted the case has no jurisdiction, they shall raise objections to the jurisdiction within the defense period of the first instance. If they don't raise any objection during this period, because the case has entered the substantive trial stage and the jurisdiction has been determined, even if the defendant within the jurisdiction of the people's court accepting the case is not a qualified defendant in this case, the people's court can rule to dismiss the plaintiff's prosecution against the defendant, without affecting the substantive trial of the case and without transferring it to jurisdiction. 2. The place of performance of the contract refers to the place where the main obligations of the contract are performed. The place where the main obligations of an intermediary contract are performed shall be determined as the place where the intermediary acts.
After reviewing the file of the first instance, the Supreme Court held that Chuangsi Company, the retrial applicant, did not raise any objection to jurisdiction during the defense of the first instance. After the case entered the substantive trial stage, because the jurisdiction has been determined, whether Kaifeng Urban Management Bureau is a qualified defendant does not affect the trial of this case by the court of first instance. Even if the people's court finds that Kaifeng Urban Management Bureau is not a qualified defendant in this case and decides to dismiss Zhiyang Company's lawsuit against Kaifeng Urban Management Bureau, it will not affect the entity trial procedure that has already started, and it is not necessary to transfer the case. In addition, the place of performance of the contract refers to the place of performance of the main obligations of the contract, and the place of performance of the main obligations of the intermediary contract in this case should be the place where the intermediary behavior takes place. According to the thank-you letter sent by Lai, a project participant of Chuangsi Company identified in the original trial, to Guo Yiqun, the chairman of Zhiyang Company, regarding that Zhiyang Company received senior management personnel of Chuangsi Company in Kaifeng and assisted Chuangsi Company in bidding for Kaifeng project, Kaifeng City, as the location of the project pointed by the intermediary contract, can be identified as the place where the intermediary contract was performed in this case, and the Kaifeng Intermediate People's Court can exercise jurisdiction accordingly. According to the Supreme People's Court's "About Application"
X. Beijing Beida Jade Bird Co., Ltd. v. Liaoning Huajin Chemical (Group) Co., Ltd. [(2005) Min Zhong Er ZiNo. 168 Civil Ruling]
Referee's main points: As the parties involved in the joint trial of the dispute over the right of recourse and the dispute over the counter-guarantee contract, they have no priority in determining the jurisdiction of the case.
The Supreme Court held that Huajin Chemical Company, the plaintiff in the original trial of this case, as the joint and several liability guarantor of the loan contract, exercised the right of recourse against the debtor and asked the counter-guarantors, namely Beida Jade Bird Company, Development Company and Finance Company, to assume the counter-guarantee responsibility, and did not violate the law. According to Article 22 of the Civil Procedure Law, "a civil lawsuit brought against a legal person or other organization shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the defendant has his domicile. If the domicile and habitual residence of several defendants in the same lawsuit are under the jurisdiction of more than two people's courts, they shall be under the jurisdiction of each people's court. As the domicile of the four defendants in this case, the people's courts have jurisdiction over this case. According to Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Law, if two or more people's courts have jurisdiction, the plaintiff may bring a lawsuit to one of them. When several people's courts have jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the right to bring a lawsuit to any people's court with jurisdiction. The Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province accepted the case as the people's court where the two defendants, Shenyang Volkswagen Company and Finance Company, lived, and did not violate the law. As two different lawsuits, recourse dispute and counter-guarantee contract dispute have no priority in determining the jurisdiction of the case. The appellant Beida Jade Bird Company, as the first defendant in this case, requested that the case be transferred to the Beijing Higher People's Court of its domicile. There is no legal basis for the appeal, and this court will not support it.
Xi。 Chongqing International Industrial Investment Co., Ltd. and Capital Asset Management Co., Ltd. [(2005) Min Zhong Er ZiNo. 125]
According to the Supreme Court, according to Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), "A lawsuit brought due to a contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the defendant's domicile or the place where the contract is performed" and the Reply on How to Determine the Place of Performance of the Loan Contract [1993]No. 10 issued by our hospital, "if the parties agree otherwise, the place of performance of the loan contract shall be determined. Although the first paragraph of Article 129 of the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that "in the event of a guarantee contract dispute in which the guarantor is jointly and severally liable, if the creditor claims rights from the guarantor, it shall be under the jurisdiction of the court where the guarantor resides", this provision is not exclusive. The facts ascertained in this case show that the loan contract, pledge contract and guarantee contract involved in this case clearly stipulate that "any dispute arising from the performance of this contract between Party A and Party B shall be settled through consultation; if negotiation fails, it shall be under the jurisdiction of the court where Party B is located". According to Article 25 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), "the parties to a contract may choose the people's court with the defendant's domicile, the place where the contract is performed, the place where the contract is signed, the plaintiff's domicile and the place where the subject matter is located for jurisdiction, but it shall not violate the provisions of this law on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction", because the agreement on jurisdiction of the parties in this case does not violate the provisions of the law on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction, the agreement on litigation jurisdiction shall be effective.
If you can give detailed information, you can give a more detailed answer.