Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (2.46 seconds)M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004
9. The Hon‟ble Supreme court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys
Ltd. v. Union of India has held 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.
Section 20A in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
M/S Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 August, 2011
"21. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition, in
addition to examining its territorial jurisdiction also examines if the
said Court is the forum conveniens to the parties. The issue of forum
conveniens is seen not only from the perspective of the writ petitioner
but it is to be seen from the convenience of all the parties before the
Court. In the facts of this case, as is evident from the record that the
forum conveniens for the both the parties is Mumbai. The Appellants
since the year 2020 have been appearing in Mumbai before SEBI in the
SCN proceedings. In W.P.(C) 15556/2023 (as well as the other writs)
the writ petitioner has sought a direction for summoning the records of
SEBI for examining the legality and validity of the Impugned
Revocation Order. In these facts, therefore, the objection of SEBI that
Mumbai is the forum conveniens for the parties has merit. The
obligation of the Court to examine the convenience of all the parties
has been expressly noted by the Full Bench of this Court in Sterling
Agro Industries Ltd. (supra)..."
Alchemist Limited And Another vs State Bank Of Sikkim And Others on 16 March, 2007
14. While dealing with the decision in the cases of Alchemist Limited
and Anr. (supra) and M/s Kusum Ingots (supra), this Court in the case of
Ardra Joseph (supra) vide order dated 01.11.2023 has held as under:-
Nasiruddin vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 29 August, 1975
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2024 at 00:40:24
specifically placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Alchemist Limited and Anr. v. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors.3,
Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal4 and M/s Kusum Ingots
and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.5 to submit that this Court has
ample jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petitions.
Sector Twenty-One Owners Welfare ... vs Air Force Naval Housing Board on 8 January, 1996
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2024 at 00:40:25
head office of any authority alone is not a sufficient ground to determine the
place of accrual of cause of action. (See: Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd.v.
Union of India6; Sector Twenty-one Owners Welfare Association (STOFWA)
v. Air Force Naval Housing Board7 and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v.
Kalyan Banerjee8). Rather, the important factors which need to be
considered are the integral, material and essential part of cause of action or
the bundle of facts, which enable a party to seek redressal of its grievance.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors vs Kalyan Banerjee on 4 March, 2008
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/07/2024 at 00:40:25
head office of any authority alone is not a sufficient ground to determine the
place of accrual of cause of action. (See: Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd.v.
Union of India6; Sector Twenty-one Owners Welfare Association (STOFWA)
v. Air Force Naval Housing Board7 and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v.
Kalyan Banerjee8). Rather, the important factors which need to be
considered are the integral, material and essential part of cause of action or
the bundle of facts, which enable a party to seek redressal of its grievance.
The State Of Goa vs Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd on 14 March, 2023
93. A perusal of paragraph no. 10 of the decision in the case of State of
Goa (supra), would signify that one of the prayers related to a
This is a digitally signed order.