Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 336 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Alchemist Limited And Another vs State Bank Of Sikkim And Others on 16 March, 2007

Lt. Col. Mahender Singh Yadav vs Union Of India on 22 August, 2008

12. Reference in this regard has been made by both sides to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Alchemist Limited v. State Bank of Sikkim {AIR 2007 SC 1812} and of the Full Bench of this court in Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant {1999(3) KLT 629}, Prakash v. Food Corporation of India {2007(4) ILR Kerala 73}. Referring to the earlier W.P.(C).No.23376 of 2007 :: 12 ::
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - V Giri - Full Document

M/S. Royal Mail Bus Service vs State & Ors on 11 September, 2008

On above premises, the Apex Court in Alchemist Limited and Anr. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors. (supra) further held that it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner-appellant would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/ petition. Nevertheless it must be a part of cause of action, nothing less than that.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Eldyne Electro Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 August, 2021

As indicated earlier the true scope and meaning of the expression 'part of the cause of action' must be addressed. This question came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alchemist vs. State Bank of Sikkim reported in AIR 2007 SC 1812. In the said decision at paragraphs 29, 35, 36 & 37, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that a single instance might not by itself form or constitute a part of the cause of action. The concept of a part was explained and clarified to mean a substantial and integral part. The said paragraphs are set out below:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Mantha - Full Document

M/S Religare Finvest Limited vs State And Anr. on 23 September, 2010

13. After taking into consideration a catena of decisions on the point of "cause of action", while tracing the decisions starting from the year 1950‟s right upto 2009, including judgments rendered in the cases of State of Bombay vs. Narottamdas Jethabhai, 1951 SCR 51; State of Madras vs. V.P. Agencies, AIR 1960 SC 1309, Gurdit Singh vs. Munsha Singh, (1977) 1 SCC 791; State of Rajasthan vs. Swaika Properties, (1985) 3 SCC 217; ONGC vs. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711; Bloom Dekor Ltd. vs. Subash Himatlal Desai, (1994) 6 SCC 322; Rajasthan High Court Advocates‟ Assn. vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 294; Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, (2004) 8 SCC 100; and Alchemist Ltd. vs. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335, the Supreme Court crystallized the law as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 124 - H Kohli - Full Document

M/S. Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd vs M/S. K.K. Spun Pipe Pvt. Ltd on 16 September, 2011

17. The expression "cause of action" refers to "every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court". This definition has been consistently accepted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Alchemist Limited Vs State Bank of Sikkim AIR 2007 SC 1812, A.B.C Laminart Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. Vs A.P Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163, Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. (1994) 4 SSC 711, Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254, and National Textile Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs Haribox Swalram & Ors. (2004) 9 SCC Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. vs. M/s. K.K. Spun Pipe Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 10 of 14
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Federation Of Medical And Sales ... vs Wockhardt Limited And 5 Ors. on 3 November, 2025

In Alchemist Ltd & Anr. Vs State Bank of Sikkim & Ors44, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of deciding whether the facts averred by the Appellant-Petitioner would or would not constitute a part of the cause of action, one must consider whether such facts constitute a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. If so, it forms part of the cause of action. If it is not, it does not form a part of the cause of action. In determining the said question, the substance of the matter and not the form thereof has to be considered. Even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless, it must be a "part of the cause of action", nothing less than that."
Bombay High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Federation Of Medical And Sales ... vs Wockhardt Ltd. on 3 November, 2025

In Alchemist Ltd & Anr. Vs State Bank of Sikkim & Ors44, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of deciding whether the facts averred by the Appellant-Petitioner would or would not constitute a part of the cause of action, one must consider whether such facts constitute a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. If so, it forms part of the cause of action. If it is not, it does not form a part of the cause of action. In determining the said question, the substance of the matter and not the form thereof has to be considered. Even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless, it must be a "part of the cause of action", nothing less than that."
Bombay High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Kamlesh Ishwarbhai Patel vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 September, 2007

4.6. It is also necessary to refer to another decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Alchemist Limited v. State Bank of Sikkim , where similar issue of territorial jurisdiction was involved. While considering the issue, the Apex Court in Para 7 has enumerated the facts pleaded by the appellant-Company of that case and the submissions based on these facts by the appellant-Company, in Para 8 of the judgment. They are reproduced verbatim hereinbelow:
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next