cites: 1981429

Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994

(vii) In Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors : the writ petitioner had challenged the non-consideration of his tender. The place where the non-consideration took place was held to be the appropriate Court.

Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 650 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Section 5 in The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 [Entire Act]

State of Rajasthan - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 5

Damomal Kausomal Raisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 December, 1965

(i) Thus in Damomal Kausomal Raisinghani v. Union of India : the subject matter of challenge was an order applicable only to the writ petitioner who had been sought to be denied compensation by the impugned order. It was in that context that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court said :

Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

L.V. Veeri Chettiar And Anr. vs Sales Tax Officer, Bombay on 13 March, 1970

(ii) Similarly in L.V. Veeri Chettiar v. ST. Officer, Bombay: , cited by the petitioners the subject matter of challenge was a notice to show cause why they would not be assessed to Sales Tax. That was why the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held :

Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Sarvodaya Industries on 25 July, 1974

(iii) The decision of State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries : was rendered in the context of a suit for compensation for "wrong done" or "complained of" under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The place where loss was suffered was held to be part of the cause of action.

Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

S.P.M. Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 March, 1974

(iv) In P.S. Rao v. Union of India : AIR 1974 Mysore 39 the case of the petitioner was that the Union Government was not competent to promote the respondent No. 2 without considering the case of the petitioner who held the post of Head of Utilisation Research at the Forest Research Laboratory, Bangalore. The very basis of claiming relief in the writ petition was that the petitioner was the holder of the aforesaid post in Bangalore. This was held to be part of the Cause of Action and sufficient to allow the writ application to be filed up the High Court at Mysore.

Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - P J Reddy - Full Document

Abdul Kafi Khan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 April, 1979

(v) In Abdul Kafi Khan v. Union of India: relied on by the respondents disciplinary proceedings were sought to be quashed. It was held that the Court within the jurisdiction of which the disciplinary proceedings took place was the appropriate Court.

Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Swaika Properties & Anr on 8 April, 1985

(viii) In State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties : the jurisdiction of this Court had been sought to be attracted on the ground that a notification issued by the State Government under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was served on the petitioner within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Supreme Court held that mere service of notice under Section 52(2) within the jurisdiction of this Court did not give rise to a cause of action unless the service was an integral part of the cause of action:

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 236 - A P Sen - Full Document

Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 5 - Cited by 1058585

Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 0 - Cited by 122106

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results