Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 92 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Globe Transport Corporation vs Triveni Engineering Works And Anr. on 31 March, 1983

Patel Roadways Ltd., No.173, Broadway ... vs Indo Matsushita Appliances Co., Ltd., ... on 6 March, 2000

we find an apparent fallacy in the aforesaid argument. The Explanations is in two parts, one before the word 'or' occurring between the words 'office in India' and the words 'in respect of' and the other thereafter. The explanation applies to a defendant which is a corporation which seen above, would include even a company such as the appellant in the instant case. The first part of the explanation applies only to such a corporation which has its sole or principal office at a particular place. In that event the courts within whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the defendant is situate will also have jurisdiction inasmuch as even if the defendant may not be actually carrying on business at that places, it will be deemed to carry on business' at that place because of the fiction created by the Explanation. Latter part of the Explanation takes care of a case where the defendant does not have a sole office but has a principal office at one place and has also a subordinate office at another place. The words "at such place' occurring at the end of the Explanation and the word 'or' referred to above which is disjunctive clearly suggest that if the case falls within later part of the Explanation it is not the court within whose jurisdiction the principal of the defendant is situate but the court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of any cause of action arising at any where it has also a subordinate office."
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Chinar Steel Industries vs Ircon International Ltd on 19 July, 2018

12. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, the court proceeded to hold that reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on A. B. C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another v. A. P. Agencies and Globe Transport Corporation v. Triveni Engineering Works and another (supra) would not have any application to the facts of the present case and consequently the petition was dismissed.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D S Thakur - Full Document

M/S Swastik Gases P.Ltd vs Indian Oil Corp.Ltd on 3 July, 2013

.………………………J. New Delhi (Madan B. Lokur) July 3, 2013 ----------------------- [1] A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem; (1989) 2 SCC 163 [2] Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Universal Petrol Chemicals Limited; (2009) 3 SCC 107 [3] Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd; (1971) 1 SCC 286 [4] Globe Transport Corporation v. Triveni Engineering Works and Another ; (1983) 4 SCC 707 [5] R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. ;(1993) 2 SCC 130 [6] Angile Insulations v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. and Another; (1995) 4 SCC 153 [7] Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Limited v. Rama Mishra; (2002) 9 SCC 613 [8] Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd ; (2004) 4 SCC 671 [9] New Moga Transport Co., through its Proprietor Krishanlal Jhanwar
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 246 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Prakash Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. vs P. Muthuswamy Gounder And Co. on 14 December, 1984

8. The reliance placed on the decision in Globe Transport Corporation v. Triveni Engineering Works 1984 Acc CJ 465 by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not in any manner advance the case of the petitioner. On a consideration of the terms of the contract, in that case, it was found that the Courts at Allahabad and Jaipur had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and by an agreement of parties, the exclusive jurisdiction of court at Jaipur was accepted to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the other court. Such is not the situation in this case, where, as pointed out earlier, it is only the court at Karur which had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the parties had attempted to confer jurisdiction on the Court at Bangalore, while it had none and the decision, therefore, has no application in this case.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Aryan Infraheight P Limited vs Signature Global India Ltd on 18 November, 2025

In Globe Transport [Globe Transport Corpn. v. Triveni Engg. Works, (1983) 4 SCC 707] while dealing with the jurisdiction clause which read, "the court in Jaipur City alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising (sic) under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transportation", this Court held that the jurisdiction clause in the agreement was valid and effective and the courts at Jaipur only had jurisdiction and not the courts at Allahabad which had jurisdiction over Naini where goods were to be delivered and were in fact delivered.
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next