Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
Savani Transport (Private) Ltd. vs Gangadhar Ghosh on 31 March, 1986 cites

Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954

At any rate, we, with respect, express our dissent from the view expressed in those observations and we are also inclined to think that in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (supra), quoted hereinbefore, these observations in the Mysore decision cannot be regarded to be good law. We accordingly overrule the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the decree passed by the learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside on the ground that the suit, was not instituted in the agreed forum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1029 - Full Document

Hakam Singh vs M/S. Gammon (India) Ltd on 8 January, 1971

1. The suit against the carrier for compensation in respect of the goods consigned, which has given rise to this appeal, was filed by the plaintiff in the City Civil Court of Calcutta and has been decreed by learned Judge of that Court, notwithstanding an agreement between the parties to the effect that "the contract shall be deemed to have been entered and made with the Administrative and Head Office of the Company at Bombay and that "the Courts in Bombay alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all claims and matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transport". The Head Office of the defendant carrier Company being in Bombay and the goods having been consigned for delivery in Calcutta, the Courts both in Bombay and Calcutta would ordinarily have jurisdiction to try the suit. The law is now well settled, and more so after the decision of the Supreme Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., , that when two or more Courts have under the law jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding, an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried only in one of such Courts is a valid agreement being neither hit by Section 28 of the Contract Act nor opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Act. Such an Agreement is of so much efficacy that if any suit is filed in any other-court in violation of such agreement and the aggrieved party successfully pleads and proves such agreement, the Court would have to order return of plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 212 - J C Shah - Full Document

Koopilan Uneen'S Daughter Pathumma & ... vs Koopilan Uneen'S Son Kuntalan Kutty ... on 6 August, 1981

5. Therefore, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Pathumma v. Kuntalan, , no objection as to the place of suing can be entertained by an appellate or revisional Court unless the following three essential conditions are satisfied, namely, (1) the objection was taken in the Court of the first instance, (2) it was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and (3) there has been a consequent failure of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 89 - A D Koshal - Full Document
1   2 Next