Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.38 seconds)
M/S Millenium Steel India Pvt. Ltd vs / on 6 August, 2021 cites

The Clan Line Steamers Ltd. vs Gordon Woodroffe And Co. (Madras) Pvt. ... on 6 November, 1978

“5(b).Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act, 1970:- There is no difficulty in appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that when there is a part of cause of action having arisen outside the jurisdiction of the Court, a leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is required mandatorily. Consequently, when such a leave has not been obtained already, the same cannot be cured subsequently, as held by this court in The Clan Line Steamers Ltd., V. Gordon Woodroffe & Co., (AIR 1980 Madras
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Bombay Co. Ltd. vs Municipal Council Dindigul on 14 November, 1927

“7. The other objection depends upon the question whether the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd., carries on business in Madras. It is no doubt true that the company has got an 10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.401 of 2017 and A.Nos.3680/2017, 1429 and 4500/2018 agency in Madras, but it is not stated that this agency has any directors here or any persons who form a kind of controlling Board in Madras or at least have some direction as regards the policies. The affidavit filed on behalf of the company is to the effect that so far as the Madras office is concerned, it has no independent discretion in the matter, but simply acts as a post office which receives applications or moneys and passes them to the Head office in Bombay, and that is the Head Office that issues all orders there being no vestige of discretion in the local office here to do anything. These facts are not contradicted and the question is whether it can be said that the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd., carries on business in Madras. I think this question is really concluded by the judgment of Beasley, J., in Bombay Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Council Dindigul A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 146 which was a suit filed by the Bombay Co. Ltd., Madras, against the Municipal Council of Dindigul. It was there shown that the representatives of the Bombay Company in Dindigul had no discretion except receiving orders and sending them on. The question was whether they carried on business in Dindigul to be taxed. It was held that they were not, and Beasley, J., in an elaborate review of the authorities states that there is no difference in principle between residence for purposes of either the Income-tax Act, or the Municipal Act, or for purposes of jurisdiction. This judgment was affirmed by the Chief Justice and Madhavan Nair, J., in O.S. Appeal No 6 of 1928 where all the authorities have been discussed by the learned Judges. I think that the facts disclosed in the present case in the affidavit, namely, that the agency in Madras does nothing, but acts as a post office forwarding proposal and sending moneys and not having any discretion in the matter either to conclude contracts or to vary them or to enter into them, the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company does not carry on business in Madras. It was stated that a suit may lie under Section 12 of the Letters Patent if the 11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.S.No.401 of 2017 and A.Nos.3680/2017, 1429 and 4500/2018 money is not paid. That may be so not on the ground that there is business carried on in Madras, but because the proposal was made in Madras and forwarded and part of the cause of action arose in Madras and on that ground leave may be given. I do not think we can confuse the fact of jurisdiction arising out of a part of the cause of action with jurisdiction arising out of the carrying on of business. Unfortunately, our rules do not provide for garnishee proceedings in cases where a part of the cause of the action arises in respect of a debt sought to be enforced by garnishee proceedings.”
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Shamchandra Rampratap And Ors. vs Bhikamchand Ganeshlal And Anr. on 21 February, 1929

“9. Where leave under Clause 12 is necessary, the granting of such leave is a condition precedent to the court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and therefore such leave has to be obtained at the time of the institution of the suit (Vide Shamchandra Rampratap v. Bhikamchand Ganeshlal, AIR 1929 Bom 468; Motilal Tribhovandas v. Shankarlal Chaganlal, AIR 1939 Bom 345; Bimal Singh Kothari v. Muir Mills Ltd., , Kshitish Kumar v. State of Bihar and Laliteswar Singh v. Rameswar Singh (1907) ILR 34 Cal 619)).
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Motilal Tribhovandas Choksey vs Shankarlal Chhaganlal on 6 December, 1938

“9. Where leave under Clause 12 is necessary, the granting of such leave is a condition precedent to the court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and therefore such leave has to be obtained at the time of the institution of the suit (Vide Shamchandra Rampratap v. Bhikamchand Ganeshlal, AIR 1929 Bom 468; Motilal Tribhovandas v. Shankarlal Chaganlal, AIR 1939 Bom 345; Bimal Singh Kothari v. Muir Mills Ltd., , Kshitish Kumar v. State of Bihar and Laliteswar Singh v. Rameswar Singh (1907) ILR 34 Cal 619)).
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Bimal Singh Kothari And Anr. vs Muir Mills Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 5 March, 1952

“9. Where leave under Clause 12 is necessary, the granting of such leave is a condition precedent to the court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and therefore such leave has to be obtained at the time of the institution of the suit (Vide Shamchandra Rampratap v. Bhikamchand Ganeshlal, AIR 1929 Bom 468; Motilal Tribhovandas v. Shankarlal Chaganlal, AIR 1939 Bom 345; Bimal Singh Kothari v. Muir Mills Ltd., , Kshitish Kumar v. State of Bihar and Laliteswar Singh v. Rameswar Singh (1907) ILR 34 Cal 619)).
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Kshitish Kumar Som vs State Of Bihar on 22 April, 1953

“9. Where leave under Clause 12 is necessary, the granting of such leave is a condition precedent to the court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and therefore such leave has to be obtained at the time of the institution of the suit (Vide Shamchandra Rampratap v. Bhikamchand Ganeshlal, AIR 1929 Bom 468; Motilal Tribhovandas v. Shankarlal Chaganlal, AIR 1939 Bom 345; Bimal Singh Kothari v. Muir Mills Ltd., , Kshitish Kumar v. State of Bihar and Laliteswar Singh v. Rameswar Singh (1907) ILR 34 Cal 619)).
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next