Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. S.S.V. Prasad S/O. Pitchaiah vs Mr. Y. Suresh Kumar S/O. Agasteen Swam ... on 23 July, 2004

Union Of India vs Late Sh. Bhagmal (Deceased) on 30 May, 2008

S T1U VWS XZY [(\ ] [ ^ _ `KacbF]ed [ f ghY i ` [ \ ` j k3] [?l i i Y a m?dKXn_ [ bo` ` jp` \ bMi?Y(b \ ` q?Y j bHrh` [:boYKXts?Y [ \ d s?Y aub9vwY aCY x8xy` z{bo` \|] [ bHi(`~}?` Y j T  V €(MV ‚ fAƒ i(` bod b„Y XKXZY [(\ v#Y aC… A€ Y*z†jy`Ka ] [ObHi(`‡}?` Y j T ˆ ˆ*U v‰i†]ez†i‡vwY aŠ[ d bF]Nx‹]e` \Cbod s `ŒY*z^ _*] jp` \$d?x<m*]ŽXŽXZY l*`|jpY ‘q*_ j“’”Y l iŒg‰d z?i*] f •<`|vwY a [(d?bY–v#Y jp` bHi Y bWbpd?boYKX XZY [(\QvwY a — ˜T(€ s†]Zl i?Y aQ] [ T ˆ ˆ U Y [ \ Y(b bMi ` bF] rh` d?x s?Y [ \ d s?Y aub9d?x T  U ˆ*FU  ™ bHi(`‡bod b„Y XAXZY [(\!v#Y a‡— ˆšT  s*]Zl i Y a(f • ` i Y a YKX›a1dC\ ` q d a ` \ bHi Y b3] [ T  U ˆ*FU  XZY [ \œrh` Y a(_ j„] [?l † s†]Zl i?Y a xpd jMrž] [?l q?Y j@bŸd†x~‘i Y a jpY [(dAf ˆ?I™žˆ € ™  U ¡  V v#Y a [(d?b Y*z^ _ ] jy` \Af‰ƒ i†]›a v¢]NbM[ ` aaC\ `Aq(d a ` \JbHi Y b£i `$zY [ [(d?b a:Y(}D]¤x‘i Y a jpY$[ d f ˆ š™9ˆ € ™I U/¡  V v“` jp`¥] [(z Xn_ \ ` \¦] [§a ` b8bFX¨`Arh` [:b d†x T1 U ˆ*MU  dAj'[(d?bMf©•<`Gi?Y a~YKX›a1d Y \ rW]Nb8bp` \ bHi Y b%9v#Y jp\ [ d f V ˆ ª « f­¬A® ¯€u°±T v#Y a q Y a:a ` \ d [ T:ˆ f U˜T f T1”T VK² \ Y bp`³d?xW] [?acbF]NbM_:b‹]edA[,d?x>Y–vwY jy\´]›a T:ˆ f U˜T f T1”T V ™ \ Y bp`Qd?x \ ` z ]›a]edA[ d?x Y(vwY jp\ ]›a U  f T V f T ˜T V Y [ \ U† f U V f T1”T —(µ¶f • ` i?Y a xF_ j@bMi ` j·m?dKXn_ [:bp` ` jy` \œbHi Y(b']Nb©q(` j@boYK] [?a¸bpd bHjy` ` a f­¹9i Y a jpY|[ d f ˆ € Y [(\ — €(U i?Y*\œs ` `A[‡a(i d(v‰[Ÿa ` q Y jpY bp`KXN} ] [ ª « f º9® … °±T fC x bo` jIY z:^ _*]›a]NbF]ed [ ‘i Y a(joYŸ[ d f — €(U v#Y a z†i Y [ l ` \žbodC‘i Y a jpY‡[(dAf V V? ] [#bMi ` }?` Y j T  V €  V ‚ f ¹ i?Y a jpY%[(d a f  U dAj  V v#Y a/z†i Y [?l*` \»Y x@bp`Aj¼Y z:^ _*]›a–]Nb‹]ed [ f ª « f º9®D °±T U q(`Aj b„Y ] [?a bod»m*]ŽXŽXZY l*` ¬ ]ŽXZY [¾½¿] f‰•<` i Y a$m?dKXn_ [:bp` ` jy` \´] [ŒbHi(` a ` b8bFX¨`Arh` [:b T1 V €(HV*‚ ¬·]ŽXZY [¾½¿]†m ]ŽX›XZY l*`/i Y a!s(` ` [œ] [(z Xn_ \ ` \ ] [ jy` m?` [ _ ` `Kacb„Y(bo`WjpY ‘:q _ j9’”Y l i g‰d z†i†] f ª « f º €c°oÀ#T ]›aža] rW]ŽXZY j bod ª « f º9®D °±T U f •<` z–Y [ [(d?b~bp` XŽX¢v‰i d i Y \ vhj„]Nb8bp` [ vwd jp\ a ÁeY s Y*\ ]‡¬ ]ŽXZY [±½¿]¨Á ] [ ª « f º9®D °±T U f‡¹9i?Y a(joY‡[ d f ˆ € ]›aha(i d(v‰[hbpdŠs(`C] [#bMi ` }?` Y j T1 V € MV*‚ f •<` i?Y aC\ `Aq(d a ` \|bHi Y bÂ` « z:`Aq b ½HY r>Y s Y [(\ ]˜Y [(\ŒauboY bp`Arh` [ bs YK]KbHi(`Ajy`Œ]›a [ dD\ d z?_ rh` [:b bod$a(i d(v bHi Y bÑ:i?Y a jpY¥[ d f ˆ š™9ˆ € ™” U/¡  V  joY ‘q*_ j Contd...........
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Sudhakar vs Noorabasha Nagoor Saheb, on 6 October, 2023

18. The appellant's counsel argues that the suit should be filed within the jurisdiction where the defendant resides or where the suit transaction occurred, implying that Parchur Court lacks jurisdiction. Conversely, the respondent's counsel contends that due to the clear recital in Ex.A.1 and the defendant's admission of its accuracy, establishing an agreement between the parties, the Parchur Court holds jurisdiction. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the case of S.S.V.Prasad V. Y.Suresh Kumar and another 3, wherein the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Duraisamy vs S.Velmurugan on 19 October, 2009

13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing strong reliance on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in A.I.R. 2005 A.P. 37 (S.S.V.Prasad V. Y.Suresh Kumar and another) contended that the holder in due course of a negotiable instrument can present a suit to recover the amount covered by it only in a Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the defendant therein resides or carry on business or in a Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the place at which such negotiable instrument can be presented. In short, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that even assuming without admitting the made-over of the promissory note took place at Chennai, still the trial court has no jurisdiction and the suit ought to have been filed only in Salem District as none of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of Chennai City Civil Court.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - S Rajeswaran - Full Document

Atma Tube Products Limited vs M/S Vinod Partners And on 21 March, 2011

In this case there is no dispute that the goods were supplied from Ludhiana to the defendants. There is also no dispute that the cheques issued by the defendants were dishonoured, therefore, part of the cause of action has accrued at Ludhiana, as such, the Courts at Ludhiana have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Moreover, the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, i.e., M/s M.M.Rubber Co.Ltd. vs. M/s Vinod Partners and furniture Industry, 2000(2) CCC 198 (Delhi) and M/s Instruments Incorporated, Bangalore vs. M/s Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. 1997(1), Civ.C.C. 108 Karnataka, supra are fully applicable to the facts of the present case and the authorities relied upon by ld. Counsel for the applicant/defendant, i.e., Chanana Steel Tubes vs. Jaitu Steel Tubes Pvt.Ltd., AIR 2000 Himachal Pradesh 48, and S.S.V. Prasad vs. Suresh Kumar, AIR 2005Andhra Pradesh 37 supra are not applicable to the facts of the present case and are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. I am convinced with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R C Gupta - Full Document

S. Purnachandra Rao vs Paleti Linga Rao on 28 April, 2005

7. It is well settled that there is no hard and fast rule to be followed for consolidating the suits which are pending in different Courts. It is well recognized that when the issue in all the suits is common and identical, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments and also to secure ends of justice the suit pending in one Court can be transferred to other Court to be tried along with the suit pending on its file, which will also save the time of the Courts. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant that since the suit is based on a promissory note and the respondent-plaintiff is an endorsee, he has to file the suit at the place where the promissory note was executed, is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in S.S.V. Prasad's case (supra). In the said case, this Court after considering Sections 68 and 70 of Negotiable Instruments Act held that the accrual of cause of action, in a given case would depend on the provisions of substantive law, governing the rights of the parties; Procedural law, such as C.P.C., would have almost no role to play, except to insist that cause of action, as such must exist.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M.R.Venu vs Smt.Veluchuri Lakshmi And Others on 24 August, 2012

07. However, the thrust of the argument of the counsel for the appellant is that the transfer indorsement for consideration does not create jurisdiction to the Court at Srungavarapu Kota as no transaction has taken place except the alleged transfer and as the defendant resides at Chittoor and following the decision reported in S.S.V.Prasad v. Y. Suresh Kumar1 the suit should have been dismissed. No doubt, in the above decision, it was held that a transfer endorsement does not create jurisdiction to the Court. The learned Judge has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 20 C.P.C and took into consideration the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Evidently, according to the learned Judge, the provisions of Sections 68 to 70 of N.I Act prescribes the place of presentation and if no place is agreed between the parties, it should be the place where the defendant resides or carries on business. Evidently, Sections 68 to 70 of N.I.Act deals with presentation of the negotiable instrument claiming the amount. None of those sections refer to the jurisdiction of a Court where the suit has to be filed. Presentation of a negotiable instrument for honouring or dishonouring is quite different from the institution of a suit for recovery of the amount due under the negotiable instrument. Therefore, the purport under Sections 68 to 70 of the N.I Act cannot be imported to consider the cause of action under Section 20 of C.P.C which mandates the procedure for filing of the suits. Having considered the scope of Section 20(C) of C.P.C, ultimately, the learned Judge found that cause of action in the larger context has two components, viz., (a) existence of a duty in the defendant towards the plaintiff and its breach; and (b) the damage or loss arising out of that breach. Therefore, the scope of cause of action evidently is from a bundle of facts. It does not start with the right of the defendant and it starts with the right of the plaintiff in instituting a suit.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N R Rao - Full Document
1