Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.04 seconds)
Rajendra Singh Bhadoriya vs Union Of India on 24 September, 2019 cites

M/S. S. Jain & Company vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 November, 2008

"25. 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 Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany, AIR 1941 Calcutta; Mandal Jalan v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. M/s Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., 1997 CWN 122; S.S.Jain & Co. & another v. Union of India & others, 1994 (1) CHN 445 and M/s. New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 47 - G K Vyas - Full Document

M/S. New Horizons Limited And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 15 October, 1993

"25. 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 Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany, AIR 1941 Calcutta; Mandal Jalan v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. M/s Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., 1997 CWN 122; S.S.Jain & Co. & another v. Union of India & others, 1994 (1) CHN 445 and M/s. New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 61 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Nawal Kishore Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 August, 2014

"15. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the uncontroverted stand taken by the respondents in their objection, it is evident that no legal right of the petitioner has prima facie either been infringed or threatened to be infringed by the respondents within the territorial limits of this Court's jurisdiction. The petitioner has merely filed a statutory appeal during his tenure of posting at Jammu which does not amount to infringement of legal right of the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mere posting of the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court taking into account the fact that entire action taken against the petitioner which is subject matter of challenge of this petition has been taken place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court would not confer any territorial jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the writ petition. The decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of Nawal 12 Kishor Sharma Supra has no application to the fact situation of the case as the appellant in the said case was suffering from serious heart ailment which forced him to stay in the native place. Besides that, it is pertinent to mention here that the respondents responded to his representations and the same were communicated to him on his home address in Bihar. In the instant case, the representation submitted by the petitioner from the State of Jammu and Kashmir have failed to evoke any response, therefore it cannot be said that any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 237 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1   2 Next