Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.31 seconds)Nasiruddin vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 29 August, 1975
35. Thus, as per the law laid down in Sri Nasiruddin (Supra), which
has been reiterated in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (Supra) by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, freedom to choose a particular High Court can be said
to be available to a petitioner only when part of cause of action arises
within one or the other High Court. In the absence of part of cause of
action arising in one or the other High Court, the petitioner will have no
freedom to choose the High Court to institute the proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our discussions made and for
the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, we have already held that
no part of cause of action can be said to have accrued to the petitioners
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in New Delhi so as to
allow the petitioners to invoke our jurisdiction for instituting the instant
writ petition, and accordingly, we are of the opinion that the petitioners
cannot be permitted to choose between this Court and the jurisdictional
High Court to institute the proceedings of the instant writ petition.
The Companies Act, 2013
Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court also observes that facts which have no
bearing with the lis or the dispute, do not give rise to a cause of action so as
to confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Court concerned. Paragraph 17 of
the judgment in Adani Export (Supra) is apposite to be extracted here,
which reads as under:
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 July, 2009
(g) The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2010 Delhi 43; (2011)
166 C-C 87 (Delhi) (page 115):"... that since the original order merges
into the appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is
located is also forum conveniens" is not correct.
Alchemist Limited And Another vs State Bank Of Sikkim And Others on 16 March, 2007
Thus, as per the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alchemist Ltd (supra), to
confer jurisdiction on the Court, only such facts are to be considered which
constitute a material, essential or integral part of cause of action. In other
words, all facts averred by the petitioner may or may not form part of cause
of action, however, only such facts, which are material, essential or integral
to the cause of action, are to be taken into account for arriving at a
conclusion as to whether, the facts averred by the petitioner would constitute
a part of cause of action.
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989
37. As a corollary to what has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. (Supra), we can safely conclude that
parties to a dispute can, by agreement, neither create jurisdiction in a
Court, which otherwise has not been conferred with such jurisdiction,
W.P.(C) 8049/2024 Page 37 of 38
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:17.12.2025
15:52:50
nor can the parties oust the jurisdiction of a Court which otherwise has
the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute.
M/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs N.Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011
According to the respondents, in Inter Globe Aviation (Supra), it
has been held that any clause in an agreement which ousts the jurisdiction of
all Courts having jurisdiction and confers jurisdiction on a Court not
otherwise having jurisdiction, would be invalid.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
It is
stated that respondent no.5 cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate
and is estopped from wriggling out of the terms and conditions of the subject
RFP and, therefore, on the principle of law laid down in Ramana Dayaram
(Supra), the respondent no.5 should be rigorously held to the terms and
conditions of the subject RFP and it cannot be permitted to deviate from the
same. The relevant portion of paragraph 10 of the report is extracted herein
below:
M/S Hanil Era Textiles Ltd vs M/S Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd on 16 April, 2004
It is stated further that in
Hanil Era Textiles (Supra), advance payment was made by the defendant at
Bombay and, therefore, it was held that part of cause of action had arisen at
Bombay.