Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd vs M/S. Shyam Metallics & Energy Ltd. & Ors on 26 September, 2011 cites

Ritu Sachdev vs Anita Jindal And Ors. on 25 February, 1982

The Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1982 Cal 333 (Ritu Sachdev v. Anita Jindal & Ors.) was considering a plea of 36 revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the ground of absence of territorial jurisdiction. Their Lordships have held that the question of jurisdiction must be decided on the allegation in the pleadings and it must be decided before the case begins whether or not there is a jurisdiction. It was further held while leave has been granted under Clause 12 and the application by defendant for revocation may raise questions far too difficult to determine upon affidavit evidence and in such case the question should not be decided on affidavit evidence and the question of difficulty and importance should not be dealt with by an application to revoke the leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Raichand And Co. vs Director General Of Foreign Trade on 17 March, 1998

It is further contended that it is also not in dispute that the Government notification having the effect throughout India, could be challenged in the High Court in India as held in 1998 (1) CLJ 425 (Raichand & Co. & Anr. v. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.). However, the tests that are laid down by His Lordship (Mrs. Ruma Pal) who was subsequently elevated to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are of paramount importance even in deciding the present appeal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - R Pal - Full Document

Industrial Fuel Marketing Co. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 28 January, 1983

(ii) Even if all the respondents are not within the jurisdiction of the Court, the presence of the concerned respondent against whom the primary relief is claimed within the jurisdiction of a Court would be sufficient to clothe such Court with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ application. Thus, in Industrial Fuel Marketing Co. v. Union of India AIR 1983 Cal 253 the jurisdiction of this Court was affirmed under Article 226(1) as it was found that the office of the concerned Officer was in Calcutta.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 10 - B C Ray - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Hindustan Aluminium Corporation ... on 23 December, 1982

The decision reported in AIR 1983 Cal 307 (Union of India v. Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. Ltd.) was relied upon for the proposition that if the petitioner suffered loss of business at its corporate office and registered office then that should be a factor for taking into consideration for holding in favour of the petitioner in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 34 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Saboo (Huf) And Anr. vs Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited ... on 10 April, 2007

The learned Advocate General, relied upon 2007 (3) CHN 533 (Ashok K. Sahoo vs. Hindusthan Paper Corpn. Ltd.) for the proposition that forum selection clause is inapplicable where the public law field operates since the power under Article 226 cannot be scuttled down and/or limited on the plea that there is a forum selection clause in the agreement.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - K J Sengupta - Full Document

Sri Zafar Khan vs Coal India Limited & Others on 5 February, 2009

It was submitted that in view of involvement of Coal Controller, Kolkata, a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Hon'ble Court. The said respondent has also referred to a judgment reported in 2009 (2) CHN 1 (Zafar Khan Vs. Coal India Limited) for the proposition that if the seat of the offending authority (which according to the proforma respondent is the Coal Controller) is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court then this Hon'ble Court would have jurisdiction under Articles 226(1) and 226(2) irrespective of the 56 place where the offending act has been committed and irrespective of the fact as to where the cause of action has arisen.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - P K Chattopadhyay - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Sahoo (Huf) And Anr. vs Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. (Hpcl) And ... on 8 September, 2005

"19. Accordingly, we hold that the word 'seat' of such Government or authority used in Clause (2) of the Article 226 means and connotes registered office or principal office or head office whatever may be 48 terminology or even branch office, irrespective of the fact that these places of office have any relation and/or nexus with the accrual of causes of action. If the nexus and/or connection of the place of business with accrual of causes of action, is conceived as contended by Mr. Chatterjee then the situs of the residence becomes meaningless and in that case Constitution makers could have deleted the theory of situs theory altogether. Rather it could have been provided straightaway that accrual of causes of action either whole or part is the only factor for invocation of jurisdiction, not the place of residence or seat of the respondent. This proposition of law as enunciated by Mr. Chatterjee drawing a reference and/or analogy in the case of a civil matter is wholly misplaced in the public law field."
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - J K Biswas - Full Document
1