Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Sri Rajendra Mills Ltd. vs H.V.M. Hazi Hasan Dada And Anr. on 7 July, 1969
In the case of Sri Rajendra Mills Vs. H.V.M. Hazi Hassan Dada- AIR 1970 Cal. 342, where there was a contract agreed between the parties that all suits arising on or out of the contract would be instituted in the court at Salem, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that it was true that the suit could have been instituted either at Salem or at Howrah under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the cause of action, admittedly arose in part in both the places and it was therefore a case where two courts had concurrent jurisdiction and it was open for the parties to make a choiice restricting the court in which the suit under the contract could be instituted. It was held that both courts having territorial jurisdiction, the parties by their agreement waived their right to institute a suit except at Salem.
Salem Chemical Industries, A ... vs Bird And Co. (P) Ltd., Calcutta on 5 April, 1978
In the case of Salem Chemical Industries Vs. Bird & Co.- AIR 1979 Mad. 16, it was held in relation to the terms and conditions attached to the quotation which contained the arbitration clause providing therein that 'any order placed against this quotation shall be deemed to be a contract made in Calcutta and any dispute arising therefrom shall be settled by an arbitrator to be jointly appointed by us'. It was held that it did not mean to confer an exclusive jurisdiction on the court at Calcutta, and when a part of the cause of action had arisen at Salem, the court there had also jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem- (1989)2 SCC 163, has observed in relation to acceptance of the offer that ordinarily acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have been performed or its performance completed. It has further been observed that in the suit for agency the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressely or impliedly payable under the contract.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
S. Manuel Raj And Co. vs J. Manilal And Co. on 29 August, 1962
In the case of S. Manuel Raj & Co. Vs. J. Manilal & Co.- AIR 1963 Guj. 148, it was held where on the printed order-form a condition was mentioned subject to Madras jurisdiction. The order form was signed by one of the parties and was sent to other party. It was held that the party must be assumed to have agreed that Madras was the place for settlement of the dispute and it ws not open to that person who signed the order form of the opposite party containing the printed words to show that printed words were not part of the contract and that those words in the contract was to exclude the jurisdiction of other courts and to keep sole jurisdiction of one court and it was in consonance with the commercial practice in India.
1