Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 487 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001

Karthi P Chidambaram vs Superintendent Of Police on 22 August, 2017

.... From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner-appellant, would or would not constitute a part of the cause of action, one has to consider whether such facts constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless, it must be a part of cause of action, nothing less than that.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 4 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Manish Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India And 4 Ors. on 1 May, 2020

In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 567 in the context of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, it has been explained that each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.
Allahabad High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Kamlesh Ishwarbhai Patel vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 September, 2007

Thus, the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. , Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim and decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Textile Labour Union, Nadiad v. Union of India clearly show that the consequences that are already fallen or are likely to fall upon the petitioner at a particular place is not a factor which can be taken into consideration for determining the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction positively. In other words, it is not a relevant, essential, integral or material fact which can constitute cause of action and confer jurisdiction on a particular Court. It is also required to be noted that the question with regard to territorial jurisdiction can be decided only on the basis of the facts or events that have already occurred since it is the cause of action which has already arisen, which confers the territorial jurisdiction on a particular Court. In the present case, it is pleaded by Mr. Sanjanwala that the consequences are likely to fall on the petitioner's property at Mehsana. That event has still not occurred. Even occurrence of the said event, in my opinion, in view of the aforesaid ratio laid down by different decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court will have no bearing on the question of territorial jurisdiction and so also the place of office or business.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Rakesh Dwivedi vs Coal India Ltd. Through The ... on 19 May, 2021

In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 567] in the context of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, it has been explained that each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 27 April, 2022

23 In order to exercise jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, the High Court must be satisfied, from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action, that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. (Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 126). Each and every fact pleaded in the writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing on the lis or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.
Gujarat High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 6 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Prakash Vithalrao Kavthekar And Ors vs Bajrang Manohar Sonavane And Ors on 21 December, 2018

35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Adani Exports Limited (supra) has held that the petitioners were carrying on business of export and import from Ahmedabad. The orders for export and import were placed from and executed from Ahmedabad. The documents and payments for export and imports were sent/made at Ahmedabad. The substantial cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahmedabad and thus the proceedings ought to have been filed at Ahmedabad and not at Chennai merely because the credit of the duty claimed in respect of export were made from Chennai.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Smt. Mangal Ganpat Doifode vs Bajrang Manohar Sonavane And Ors on 21 December, 2018

35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Adani Exports Limited (supra) has held that the petitioners were carrying on business of export and import from Ahmedabad. The orders for export and import were placed from and executed from Ahmedabad. The documents and payments for export and imports were sent/made at Ahmedabad. The substantial cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court at Ahmedabad and thus the proceedings ought to have been filed at Ahmedabad and not at Chennai merely because the credit of the duty claimed in respect of export were made from Chennai.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

G.I. Retail Private Limited vs Goomo Orbit Corporate & Leisure on 15 September, 2020

26.1. The cause of action is a mixed question of facts and law and the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India and Others V. Adani Exports Limited and others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 567 held that at least part of cause of action has to arise within the jurisdiction of that Court to maintain the proceedings. Paragraph No.17 of the judgment is extracted as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 1 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

Career Campus, Thr. Its Sole ... vs The State Of Maha., Thr. Prin. ... on 4 December, 2025

"9. Reference can also be made to the decision in National Textile Corporation Limited and others (supra). The petitioners in the writ petitions were situated at Mumbai and entered into contracts for purchasing cloth. With regard to contractual obligations, it was their grievance that the National Textile Corporation which had taken over the mills in question failed to Judgment 12 WP5947-2025.odt abide by the contractual obligations. Writ petition in that regard was filed before the Calcutta High Court by urging that since the said petitioners were carrying business at Calcutta, letters were sent by them from Calcutta and replies to the same had been received at Calcutta, a part of cause of action had accrued in the State of West Bengal. On the question of territorial jurisdiction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mills in question were situated in Mumbai and supply of cloth was to be made ex-factory at Mumbai. The mere fact that the petitioner carried on business at Calcutta or that reply to the correspondence made by it was received at Calcutta would not be an integral part of the cause of action and therefore the High Court at Calcutta had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A S Kilor - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next