Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Section 8 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Hakam Singh vs M/S. Gammon (India) Ltd on 8 January, 1971
Madhusudan (AIR 1977 Bom 2991 that
the parties are free to choose one of
the two forums to try the suit if more
than one court have concurrent jurisdiction. It is also held in Hindustan Tiles Corporation v. Kisanlal Mataprasad
Agarwal by Dharmadhikari, J. that by an agreement between the parties they can restrict forum
to one of the courts having such jurisdiction, The learned Judge refers to
the decision in Ghatge and Patil (Tran
sport) Ltd. v. Madhusudan as well as
Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd.,
(supra).
Hindustan Tiles Corporation vs Kisanlal Mataprasad Agrawal on 18 August, 1978
The facts in both the cases i.e. Ghatae
and Patil case as
well as Hindustan Tiles Corporation
(supra) were of
signed written contracts. Both the
plaintiffs in both the cases, had admitted
that they were aware of the terms of
the contract and therefore, they were
bound by the terms of the contract, re
stricting jurisdiction to the forums mentioned in the agreement.
The Carriers Act, 1865
Section 69 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Indian Companies Act, 1913
Surajmall Shiwbhagawan vs Kalinga Iron Works on 9 March, 1979
50. Reliance was placed on Surajmal Shiwbhagwan v. Kalinga Iron Works. to the effect that the ouster Of jurisdiction should not be assumed or presumed very easily or lightly. It is further observed as follows :--
Section 9 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Ghatge And Patil (Transport) Ltd. vs Madhusudan Ramkumar on 16 November, 1976
The facts in both the cases i.e. Ghatae
and Patil case as
well as Hindustan Tiles Corporation
(supra) were of
signed written contracts. Both the
plaintiffs in both the cases, had admitted
that they were aware of the terms of
the contract and therefore, they were
bound by the terms of the contract, re
stricting jurisdiction to the forums mentioned in the agreement.