Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs Central Bank Of India Ltd. on 6 April, 1960

Kamla Chopra vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... on 6 December, 1973

26. There is no doubt that the central office of the Corporation being at Bombay the plaintiff, if she so chooses, can bring her suit at Bombay. The question is whether there is a subordinate office at Delhi. Assuming: that Delhi is a subordinate office but if no part of the cause of action has arisen at the place where the branch of subordinate office is situated the mere fact of the corporation having a branch office will not give the Court of that place jurisdiction to entertain a suit. The law is well settled that if no part of the cause of action arises at the place of the branch office, the mere fact of the Corporation having a branch office at the place will not give the Court jurisdiction: See Bhola Nath Aggarwal v. The Empire of India Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Air 1948 Lah 56; Bharat Insurance Co.. Delhi v. Wasudeo Ramchandra- Air 1956 Nag 203 and Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of India Ltd.. .
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Conzerv Systems P Ltd vs T.K. Babu And Others on 20 August, 2008

13. It is settled position in law that at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the plaint and the plaint alone is to be looked into. From a bare look of the plaint in the present case, it cannot be said that the same does not disclose this Court to be having territorial jurisdiction. The Senior Counsel for the defendants has also not argued that even if the defendants were to be carrying on business IA.No. 848/2006 in CS(OS) 1567/2005 Page no. 8 of 15 at Delhi, this court would still not have jurisdiction over the reliefs to which objection has been taken (there being admission with respect to the relief qua infringement of registered trademark and copyright). The senior counsel for the defendants on the contrary sought to draw support from Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v Central Bank of India Ltd. AIR 1961 Kerala 50 to urge that even if the defendants were carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the court but if no cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of that court, that court would still not have territorial jurisdiction over the dispute. Arguments were also addressed that the office of the plaintiff at Delhi was in a residential locality wherefrom no business activity could be carried on. Support was also sought to be drawn from the explanation to Section 20 of the CPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1