Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Another vs Rama Ram Sonkar And Others on 9 May, 2000

Itc Ltd vs Kn Agri Resources on 31 March, 2026

In support of the contention the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in the cases of Kamala and others Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa and others reported as (2008) 12 SCC 661, Shriram City Union finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rama Mishra (2002) 9 SCC 613, Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Universal Petrol Chemicals Limited (2009) 3 SCC 107, Swastik Gases Private Limited Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2013) 9 SCC 32, Reliance Securities Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar 2016 SCC OnLine MP 10541, Wollaque Ventilation and Conditioning Pvt Ltd. Vs. Sterling Tools Ltd. 2011 SCC OnLine Del893: (2011) 177 DLT 731, Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanuysali (Gajra) dead Through Legal Representatives and others (2020) 7 SCC 366, Bajranglal Agarwal Vs. Susheela Agarwal and others 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1823 SPML Infra Limited Vs. Graphite India Limited 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2808: (2020)3 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 02-04-2026 11:24:20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25581 3 MP-5797-2024 Arb LR 439, M/s Bharat Barrel and Drum MFG. Co. Vs. The Employees State Insurance Corporation 1971(2) SCC 860, Nibro Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited 1990 SCC OnLine Del 65:ILR (1991) 2 Del 172 : AIR 1991 Delhi 25, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Private Limited, (2011) 11 SCC 524 to argue that where parties have entered into an agreement regarding jurisdiction, only the court agreed upon shall have jurisdiction to decide disputes. It is further argued that even if words like "alone," "only," or "exclusive jurisdiction" are not expressly used, the intention of the parties to confer jurisdiction on one court is sufficient to exclude other courts.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document

Castrol India Ltd. vs Malayalam Agencies on 10 April, 2003

In a recent decision in Shriram City Union finance Corporation Limited v. Rama Mishra (2002 (9) SCC 613) the Apex Court held, in case parties under their own agreement expressly agree that their dispute shall be tried by only one of the specified courts then the parties can only file the suit in that court alone to which they have so agreed. In that case Apex Court examined the scope of Clause 34 of the agreement by which parties have bound themselves that any matter arising between them under the said contract, it is the courts in Calcutta alone which will have jurisdiction. Once parties bound themselves as such, it is not open for them to choose a different jurisdiction as in that case by filing the suit at Bhubaneshwar. Such a suit would be in violation of the said agreement. As far as this case is concerned, we have already indicated no exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred for the courts in the City of Chennai, but only exclusive option to the company to file suit in the City of Chennai or go for arbitration at Mumbai. Emphasis we have already indicated is made on the option and not on exclusive jurisdiction to other courts.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1