Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Savani Transport (Private) Ltd. vs Gangadhar Ghosh on 31 March, 1986

National Projects Construction ... vs Sadhu Singh And Co. on 19 April, 2007

4. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellants had voluntarily invoked and unconditionally submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court by filing objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. It was pointed out that the issues in the case were framed on 14th September, 1998. Reference was made to Section 41 of the Act and Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short). Reliance was placed upon the following judgments : National Aluminium Co. Ltd v. Pressteel and Fabrication Pvt. Ltd and Anr. , Hira Lal Patni v. Kali Nath , Pathumma and Ors. (daughter of Koopilan Uneen) v. Kuntalan Kutty (son of Koopilan Uneen) , Koopilan Uneen's v. Koopilan Uneen's , M/s. Savani Transport Pvt. Ltd v. Gangadhar Ghosh reported in (1986) 1 CHN 443, Mazid Ali (decd.)
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Khanna - Full Document

G.M., Ongc, Sibsagar, Assam And Ors. vs Raj Engg. Corporation on 1 October, 1986

23. The above decision has been followed by a Division Bench of this court in Savani Transport (P) Ltd. v. Gangadhar Ghosh, . In the case under reference the plaintiff, who was the respondent in the first appeal, sued the defendant for compensation in respect of the goods consigned. There was an agreement between the consignor and the consignee that if any claim arose in respect of the consignment, the suit shall be instituted in Bombay. The suit, however, was decreed by the City Civil Court. Calcutta. The objection relating to the place of suing was taken but it was turned down. The submission on behalf of the appellant before the Division Bench was that the decree by the City Civil Court ought to be set aside on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1