Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (3.52 seconds)Kana Ram And Etc. Etc. vs The Regional Transport Authority And ... on 17 January, 1989
In Kana Ram (supra), the Rajasthan High Court
in the given facts of the said case observed that the
6
permit having been granted by the Regional
Transport Authority of one State (Rajasthan) and is
to be countersigned by the Regional Transport
Authority of other State (Haryana), a part of cause
of action has to be origin in either of the two States.
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 September, 2000
In Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others [(2000) 7 SCC 640], it is
held:-
Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001
In Union of India and others Vs. Adani Exports
Ltd. and another [(2002) 1 SCC 567], it is held:-
Nawal Kishore Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 August, 2014
In Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and
others [(2014) 9 SCC 329], it is held by their
8
Lordships:-
M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004
The preliminary objection raised on behalf of
the respondents as to maintainability of present
petitions, when tested on the anvil of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots (supra)
deserves to be upheld.
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Nirmal Kumar Chordia And Ors. on 17 November, 1988
Thus, the judgement in Nirmal Kumar Chordia
(supra) is of no assistance to the petitioners.
Bhagat Singh Bugga vs Dewan Jagbir Sawhney on 28 January, 1941
"30. We must, however, remind ourselves
that even if a small part of cause of action
arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court, the same by itself may not be
considered to be a determinative factor
compelling the High Court to decide the
matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the
Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum
conveniens. (See Bhagat Singh Bugga v.
Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, AIR 1941 Cal 670;
Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN
357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Jharia
Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN
122; S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India (1994) 1
CHN 445; New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of
India, AIR 1994 Del 126).
Sou. Ramkuvar Madanlal Atale vs Madanlal Surajkaran Atale on 21 August, 1974
"30. We must, however, remind ourselves
that even if a small part of cause of action
arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court, the same by itself may not be
considered to be a determinative factor
compelling the High Court to decide the
matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the
Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum
conveniens. (See Bhagat Singh Bugga v.
Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, AIR 1941 Cal 670;
Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN
357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Jharia
Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN
122; S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India (1994) 1
CHN 445; New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of
India, AIR 1994 Del 126).
Bharat Coking Coal Limited. vs Jharia Talkies And Cold Storage Private ... on 21 February, 1992
"30. We must, however, remind ourselves
that even if a small part of cause of action
arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court, the same by itself may not be
considered to be a determinative factor
compelling the High Court to decide the
matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the
Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum
conveniens. (See Bhagat Singh Bugga v.
Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, AIR 1941 Cal 670;
Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN
357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Jharia
Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN
122; S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India (1994) 1
CHN 445; New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of
India, AIR 1994 Del 126).