Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.13 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Rajendra Mills Ltd. vs H.V.M. Hazi Hasan Dada And Anr. on 7 July, 1969

Ikon Associates vs M/S Gopinath Enterprise Private ... on 2 August, 2022

Similarly in Sri Rajendra Mills v. H. V. M. Hazi Hassan Dada where there was a contract between the plaintiff and defendant under which the parties agreed that all suits arising on or out of the contract, would be instituted in the court at Salem, the Division Bench held that it was true that the suit could have been instituted either at Salem or at Howrah under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the cause of action, admittedly arose in part in both the places and it was therefore a case where two courts had concurrent jurisdiction and, in such a case, it was open to the parties to make a choice restricting the court in which the suit under or upon the contract could be instituted. In other words, both the courts having territorial jurisdiction, the parties by their agreement waived their right, to institute any action, as aforesaid except at Salem. It was observed that under those circumstances it was not open to the plaintiff to Page 37 of 146 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 22:34:34 IST 2022 C/SCA/20148/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2022 object to the order for return of the plaint for presentation to the court at Salem as the choice of forum in case of alternative forums lies with the plaintiff and the plaintiff having debarred or precluded itself from going to any other court except at Salem which would be a proper court as against the defendants it would not be just to allow the plaintiff at the instance of any other party or under cover of its objection to institute the suit except in the court at Salem.
Gujarat High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Rai And Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Trikamji Kanji Gajjar And Sons And Ors. on 2 November, 1973

8. The decision also proceeds on the prima facie presumption that the Court would have always a leaning to keep the parties to their bargain, except in such cases where it would be wholly inequitable to do so and when the parties' contract does not oust the jurisdiction of the other competent Court. Finally, Mr. Shah relied on the decision in Sri Rajendra Mills v. Nazi Hasan , by the Division Bench consisting of P.N. Mookerjee, A.C.J, and Amiya Kumar Mookerjee J., which also merely lays down that where both the Courts had territorial jurisdiction, the parties by their agreement could waive their right to institute their action in one of these two Courts. In such a case even if another defendant was added, who was not a party to the agreement, the plaintiff who had waived his right could not institute the suit in the Court other than the one chosen by him. In this decision also this question had not been considered as to whether the contractual stipulation operates as an absolute bar to the existence of the jurisdiction of the other Courts.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

General Industries vs Bank Of Rajasthan And Rajasthan State ... on 1 February, 1980

22. Next decision to which my attention was drawn was a decision in the case of Sri Rajendra Mills Ltd. v. H.F.M. Hazi Hasan Dada, , where the Division Bench of this court held that as the case before the Division Bench was a case where two courts had concurrent jurisdiction the suit could have been instituted at either of the places under Section 20(c) of the CPC. As the parties by an agreement waived their right to institute any action except at Salern, it was not open to the plaintiff to object to the order of return of the plaint for presentation to the Salem court. It was recognised in that case that, though the Union of India, as co-defendant, was not a party to the agreement for ouster of jurisdiction, it could not object to such a course as the choice of forum in cases of alternative forum lies with the plaintiff. In that case, the suit was instituted claiming damages for loss of certain goods against two defendants, defendant No. 1 who supplied the goods and defendant No. 2, Union of India, representing the railways. As there was a bargain between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 that the suit would be instituted in the court at Salem, the court found that it would not be inconvenient to hold the parties to the bargain and directed that the suit should be filed at Salem and the plaint should be returned for presentation to the appropriate court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Mukharji - Full Document

M/S. Thakral And Sons vs Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation ... on 2 March, 1993

Similarly in Sri Rajendra Mills v. Haji Hasan, where there was a contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. I under which the parties agreed that all suits arising on or out of the contract would be instituted in the Court at Salem, The Division Bench held that it was true that the suit could have been instituted either at Salem or at Howrah under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the cause of action, admittedly arose in part in both the places and it was, therefore, a case where two Courts had concurrent jurisdiction and, in such a case, it was open to the parties to make a choice restricting the Court in which the suit under or upon the contract could be instituted. In other words, both the Courts having territorial jurisdiction the parties by their agreement waived their right, to institute any action, as aforesaid except at Salem. It was observed that under those circumstances it was not open to the plaintiff to object to the order for return of the plaint for presentation to the Court at Salem as the choice of forum in case of alternative forums lies with the plaintiff and the plaintiff having debarred or precluded itself from going to any other Court except at Salem which would be a proper Court as against the defendants it would not be just to allow the plaintiff at the instance of any other party or under cover of its objection to institute the suit except in the Court at Salem."
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Priti Pratap Singh vs The Sariska Palace & Ors. on 28 May, 2013

9. It was further contended that so far as the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they themselves had admitted that they are carrying out activities in Delhi and, therefore, at best even if it is treated as an admission, the two courts both in Delhi and at District Nagaur, Rajasthan will have the jurisdiction and in case there are two courts having a concurrent jurisdiction, the plaintiff, namely, the appellant had an option to file the suit in either of the two courts and accordingly, the appellant having chosen to file the suit in Delhi could not be said that the Delhi court did not have the jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard was also placed on Sri Rajendra Mills Ltd. vs. H.V.M. Hazi Hasan Dada & Another; AIR 1970 Calcutta 342 and The Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. & Others vs. Ranjit Kumar Mishra; AIR 1980 Orissa 152.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - V K Shali - Full Document

Jindal Hometex India Pvt Ltd vs M/S R K Fabrics & Ors on 3 August, 2009

In the case of Sri Rajendra Mills Vs. H.V.M. Hazi Hassan Dada- AIR 1970 Cal. 342, where there was a contract agreed between the parties that all suits arising on or out of the contract would be instituted in the court at Salem, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that it was true that the suit could have been instituted either at Salem or at Howrah under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the cause of action, admittedly arose in part in both the places and it was therefore a case where two courts had concurrent jurisdiction and it was open for the parties to make a choiice restricting the court in which the suit under the contract could be instituted. It was held that both courts having territorial jurisdiction, the parties by their agreement waived their right to institute a suit except at Salem.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jindal Hometex India Pvt Ltd vs M/S A V R Fabrics on 3 August, 2009

In the case of Sri Rajendra Mills Vs. H.V.M. Hazi Hassan Dada- AIR 1970 Cal. 342, where there was a contract agreed between the parties that all suits arising on or out of the contract would be instituted in the court at Salem, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that it was true that the suit could have been instituted either at Salem or at Howrah under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the cause of action, admittedly arose in part in both the places and it was therefore a case where two courts had concurrent jurisdiction and it was open for the parties to make a choiice restricting the court in which the suit under the contract could be instituted. It was held that both courts having territorial jurisdiction, the parties by their agreement waived their right to institute a suit except at Salem.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cs No.150/16 vs M/S Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd on 22 September, 2016

Similarly in Sri Rajendra Mills v. H.V.M. Hazi Hassan Dada where there was a contract   between   the   plaintiff   and   defendant   1 under   which   the   parties   agreed   that   all   suits arising   on   or   out   of   the   contract,   would   be instituted   in   the   court   at   Salem,   the   Division Bench   held   that   it   was   true   that   the   suit   could have been instituted either at Salem or at Howrah under   Section   20   (c)   of   the   Code   of   Civil Procedure,   as   the   cause   of   action,   admittedly arose   in   part   in   both   the   places   and   it   was therefore a case where two courts had concurrent jurisdiction and, in such a case, it was open to the parties to make a choice restricting the court in which the suit under or upon the contract could be   instituted.     In   other   words,   both   the   courts having territorial jurisdiction, the parties by their agreement   waived   their   right,   to   institute   any action,   as   aforesaid   except   at   Salem.     It   was observed  that  under   those  circumstances  it  was not open to the plaintiff to object to the order for return of the plaint for presentation to the court at Salem   as   the   choice   of   forum   in   case   of alternative forums lies with the plaintiff and the plaintiff having debarred or precluded itself from going to any other court except at Salem which would   not   be   just   to   allow   the   plaintiff   at   the instance of any other party or under cover of its objection to institute the suit except in the court at Salem.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next