Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)
Sangeeta B Agarwal W/O. Shri Banshidhar ... vs F.S. Housing Private Limited on 9 September, 2024
cites
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs Abhishek Khanna on 11 January, 2021
The complainant/appellant having elected the Fora herself, a consumer complaint would therefore not be maintainable keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Ors (2021) 3 SCC 241, Paragraph 37.5 , which is extracted hereunder:
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Cipla Ltd. & Anr on 21 October, 2016
Apart from this, the principles of 'forum shopping' as explained by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Cipla Ltd. and Anr. (2017) 5 SCC 262, Paragraphs 146 to 155, do not permit the entertaining of any such litigation and that would also be against public policy. The aforesaid paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
Cipla Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2012
"146. The learned Solicitor General submitted that Cipla was guilty of forum shopping inasmuch as it had filed petitions in the Bombay High Court, the Karnataka High Court and also an affidavit in the Delhi High Court as a member of the Bulk Drug Manufacturers Association and had eventually approached the Allahabad High Court for relief resulting in the impugned judgment and order dated 3-3-2004 [Cipla Ltd. v. Union of India, 2004 SCC OnLine All 1836 : 2004 All LJ 1994] . It was submitted that since Cipla had approached several constitutional courts for relief, the proceedings initiated in the Allahabad High Court clearly amount to forum shopping.
Rajiv Bhatia vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 9 September, 1999
148. A classic example of forum shopping is when a litigant approaches one Court for relief but does not get the desired relief and then approaches another Court for the same relief. This occurred in Rajiv Bhatia v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) [Rajiv Bhatia v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 525] . The respondent mother of a young child had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High Court and apparently did not get the required relief from that Court. She then filed a petition in the Delhi High Court also for a writ of habeas corpus and obtained the necessary relief. Notwithstanding this, this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Delhi High Court for the reason that this Court ascertained the views of the child and found that she did not want to even talk to her adoptive parents and therefore the custody of the child granted by the Delhi High Court to the respondent mother was not interfered with. The decision of this Court is on its own facts, even though it is a classic case of forum shopping.
Arathi Bandi vs Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors on 16 July, 2013
In Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao [Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao, (2013) 15 SCC 790 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 475] this Court noted that jurisdiction in a court is not attracted by the operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances. In that case, circumstances were created by one of the parties to the dispute to confer jurisdiction on a particular High Court. This was frowned upon by this Court by observing that to allow the assumption of jurisdiction in created circumstances would only result in encouraging forum shopping.
World Tanker Carrier Corporation vs Snp Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 20 April, 1998
150. Another case of creating circumstances for the purposes of forum shopping was World Tanker Carrier Corpn. v. SNP Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [World Tanker Carrier Corpn. v. SNP Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 310] wherein it was observed that the respondent/plaintiff had made a deliberate attempt to bring the cause of action, namely, a collision between two vessels on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Bringing one of the vessels to Bombay in order to confer jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court had the character of forum shopping rather than anything else.
Sri Ambika Steel Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 January, 2018
In Ambica Industries v. CCE [Ambica Industries v. CCE, (2007) 6 SCC 769] the assessee was from Lucknow. It challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Cestat") located in Delhi before the Delhi High Court. Cestat had jurisdiction over the State of Uttar Pradesh, NCT of Delhi and the State of Maharashtra. The Delhi High Court did not entertain the proceedings initiated by the assessee for want of territorial jurisdiction. Dismissing the assessee's appeal this Court gave the example of an assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by the Delhi High Court or an assessee affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and consequently evade the law laid down by the Bombay High Court. It was said that this could not be allowed and circumstances such as this would lead to some sort of judicial anarchy.
Jagmohan Bahl vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 18 December, 2014
152. Yet another form of forum shopping was noticed in Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 16 SCC 501 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 521] wherein it was held that successive bail applications filed by a litigant ought to be heard by the same learned Judge, otherwise an unscrupulous litigant would go on filing bail applications before different Judges until a favourable order is obtained. Unless this practice was nipped in the bud, it would encourage unscrupulous litigants and encourage them to entertain the idea that they can indulge in forum shopping, which has no sanction in law and certainly no sanctity.