K.N. Guruswami And Ors. vs Muhammad Khan Sahib on 9 August, 1932
and Nalla Karuppa Settiar v. Mahomed Iburam Saheb (1896) I.L.R. 20 Mad. 112 : 7 M.L.J. 76.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)Documents citing
Nalla Karuppa Chettiar vs Iburam Saheb on 26 November, 1896
Ramanathan Chettyar And Anr. vs Kalimuthu Pillay And Anr. on 28 August, 1912
It is clearly established that, if they had been plaintiffs in the suit, there would have been a selection of the forum and it is also clear that if, in any contract, there had been an agreement that suits should be decided by the Court of the place of business, there would have been a contract to submit. I can see no reason why a power-of-attorney of this character which, presumably, is brought to the notice of persons dealing with the firm, should not be evidence that the members of the firm adopted the Court of Singapore as the forum before which their claims were to be brought. Is there anything in the decisions which compels me to hold otherwise? This point does not appear to have been pressed on the Judges of this Court, who decided the case Nalla Karuppa Settiar v. Mahomad Iburam 20 M. 112. There was no power-of-attorney in that case, the service having been on one resident partner; and it may be that the faces in that case were not clearly as strong as they are in the present case. The decision went entirely on the question whether the defendant was constructively resident and whether service on the resident partner was sufficient to found jurisdiction.
Kassim Mamoojee vs Isuf Mahomed Sulliman on 14 May, 1902
9. The facts in this case are very different from the facts in the case in the Madras Court, but at the same time, with great deference to the learned Judges in that Court, it seems to me that the principle laid down by them is somewhat too narrow in respect of the enforceability of foreign judgments against a person who, though not resident within the jurisdiction of the foreign Court, carries on a business within that jurisdiction through an agent, for, although there may be no constructive residence within the jurisdiction of the foreign Court, yet the fact that a person carries on business within the jurisdiction of that Court must be one of the circumstances which should be taken into consideration in determining whether he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign Court.
Ramanathan Chettyar And Anr. vs Kalimuthu Pillay And Anr. on 18 August, 1912
It is clearly established that, if they had been plaintiffs in the suit, there would have been a selection of the forum and it is also clear that if, in any contract, there had been an agreement that suits should be decided by the Court of the place of business, there would have been a contract to submit. I can see no reason why a power-of-attorney of this character which, presumably, is brought to the notice of persons dealing with the firm, should not be evidence that the members of the firm adopted the Court of Singapore as the forum before which their claims were to be brought. Is there anything in the decisions which compels me to hold otherwise? This point does not appear to have been pressed on the judges of this Court, who decide the case Nalla Karuppa Settiar v. Mahomed Iburam (1896) I.L.R. 20 M. 112. There was no power-of-attorney in that case, the service having been on one resident partner; and it may be that the facts in that case were not clearly as strong as they are in the present case. The decision went entirely on the question whether the defendant was constructively resident and whether service on the resident partner was sufficient to found jurisdiction.
1