Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Ramanathan Chettyar And Anr. vs Kalimuthu Pillay And Anr. on 28 August, 1912 cites

Fazal Shau Khan vs Gafar Khan on 22 September, 1891

The last case, Fazal Shau Khan v. Gafar Khan 15 M. 82 was one in which the defendant appeared by an agent and defended the suit. The Bench uses the following words: "it appears, however, from the evidence that the appellant carried on business by his agent within the limits of the territory. Moreover, the defendant did not protest that the Court had no jurisdiction, but appeared by an agent and defended the suit. Having done so, and having taken the chance of a judgment in his favour, he cannot now, when, an action is brought against him on the judgment, take exception to the jurisdiction." It is difficult to say on which of the two propositions the Court founded its judgment. On the facts, there was certainly a clear submission. On the whole, in spite of the language used in these judgments on which the plaintiff relies, I am not prepared to hold that the law allows service on an agent of a partnership to create jurisdiction on the ground of residence.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Nalla Karuppa Chettiar vs Iburam Saheb on 26 November, 1896

It is clearly established that, if they had been plaintiffs in the suit, there would have been a selection of the forum and it is also clear that if, in any contract, there had been an agreement that suits should be decided by the Court of the place of business, there would have been a contract to submit. I can see no reason why a power-of-attorney of this character which, presumably, is brought to the notice of persons dealing with the firm, should not be evidence that the members of the firm adopted the Court of Singapore as the forum before which their claims were to be brought. Is there anything in the decisions which compels me to hold otherwise? This point does not appear to have been pressed on the Judges of this Court, who decided the case Nalla Karuppa Settiar v. Mahomad Iburam 20 M. 112. There was no power-of-attorney in that case, the service having been on one resident partner; and it may be that the faces in that case were not clearly as strong as they are in the present case. The decision went entirely on the question whether the defendant was constructively resident and whether service on the resident partner was sufficient to found jurisdiction.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1