Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.20 seconds)State Of Punjab vs A.K. Raha (Engineers) Ltd. on 18 September, 1963
19. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the common law rule that a debtor must seek the creditor for payment and for this reason also, placed reliance on State of Punjab v. A.K. Raha (Engineers) Ltd. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the defendant has however contended that this general common law rule cannot be applied in abstract in the light of law which has evolved subsequently and that application of such a rule would work extreme hardship in the given facts to the defendants.
M/S South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd vs M/S Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 13 March, 1996
In South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., the apex court held that mere issuance of the bank guarantee at Delhi could not give rise to cause of action here.
Dura-Line India Pvt. Ltd. vs Bpl Broadband Network Pvt. Ltd. on 2 December, 2003
33. I further find that the plaintiff has relied upon a pronouncement of this Court Dura-line India Pvt. Ltd. v. BPL Broadband Network Pvt. Ltd. In this case, the court had arrived at a conclusion that the contract had been concluded in Delhi and the payments have been received in Delhi and hence, material part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. For this reason, a finding was returned to the effect that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject matter of the case.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board And ... vs Dayal Wood Work on 18 February, 1998
18. Undoubtedly, there is no clause restricting exclusive jurisdiction to any court contained in the agreements between the parties. I find that so far as the pronouncement of this Court Continental and Eastern Agencies v. Coal India Ltd. and Ors. and the pronouncements of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 Kerala 397 Dr. Jose Paul and Anr. v. Jose and Ors.; State of Punjab v. A.K. Raha (Engineers) Ltd.; and AIR 1998 AP 381 Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Dayal Wood Works. are concerned, the same considered adjudication of the objection with regard to jurisdiction after recording of evidence. In these cases, the plaintiffs have in fact, in their evidence established that the contracts were communicated to the plaintiff at Delhi and that the payments of the claims were to be effected by the defendants at Delhi.
Rashtriya Mahila Kosh vs Youth Charitable Organisation And Ors. on 8 September, 2005
28. I also find that the pleas similar to those raised before this Court have been the subject matter of a judicial pronouncement. The issues before the court in the judgment rendered on 8th September, 2005 in I.A. No. 5879/2005 in CS (OS) No. 442/2004 entitled Rashtriya Mahila Kosh v. Youth Charitable Organisation and Ors. are identical to the issues raised before this Court.
Continental And Eastern Agencies vs Coal India Limited And Ors. on 20 May, 2003
18. Undoubtedly, there is no clause restricting exclusive jurisdiction to any court contained in the agreements between the parties. I find that so far as the pronouncement of this Court Continental and Eastern Agencies v. Coal India Ltd. and Ors. and the pronouncements of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 Kerala 397 Dr. Jose Paul and Anr. v. Jose and Ors.; State of Punjab v. A.K. Raha (Engineers) Ltd.; and AIR 1998 AP 381 Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Dayal Wood Works. are concerned, the same considered adjudication of the objection with regard to jurisdiction after recording of evidence. In these cases, the plaintiffs have in fact, in their evidence established that the contracts were communicated to the plaintiff at Delhi and that the payments of the claims were to be effected by the defendants at Delhi.
Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs Prasad Trading Company on 6 August, 1991
21. It is well settled that the territorial jurisdiction of a civil court would be ascertained having regard to the place of accrual of cause of action. This issue has fallen for consideration in a catena of judicial pronouncements by the Apex Court reported at State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties; Union of India v. Adani Export Ltd. and Ors.; National Textile Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Haribox Swalram and Ors.; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.; Patel Roadways Limited Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company; Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors.; South East Asia Shipping Company Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Several pronouncements of Division Bench of this Court also have adjudicated upon this issue.
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994
21. It is well settled that the territorial jurisdiction of a civil court would be ascertained having regard to the place of accrual of cause of action. This issue has fallen for consideration in a catena of judicial pronouncements by the Apex Court reported at State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties; Union of India v. Adani Export Ltd. and Ors.; National Textile Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Haribox Swalram and Ors.; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.; Patel Roadways Limited Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company; Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors.; South East Asia Shipping Company Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Several pronouncements of Division Bench of this Court also have adjudicated upon this issue.
Sector Twenty-One Owners Welfare ... vs Air Force Naval Housing Board on 8 January, 1996
In the judgments reported at 85 (1997) DLT 81 DB Sector 21 owners Welfare Association v. Air Force Naval Housing Board and Ors.; and (2003) 69 DRJ 98 A.K. Surekha and Ors. v. The Pradeshiya Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd and Anr.; and (2004) 73 DRJ 104 Callipers Naigai Ltd. and Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., this Court has considered the same issue.