Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.28 seconds)
Rakesh Kumar Nagpal vs . M/S Gammon India Ltd. on 2 September, 2019 cites

Thompson Press (India) Ltd. vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 15 March, 2000

27. It is pressed that since the said judgment is subsequent to the judgment of Thompson Press (India) Ltd. (supra), the later view of the Hon'ble High Court would prevail upon the former view and as such, this Court would have territorial jurisdiction to try and maintain the present suit, in as much as, the purchase orders have been placed from the very office situated at Madangir, New Delhi.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 16 - J B Goel - Full Document

Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs Prasad Trading Company on 6 August, 1991

28. As regards the Patel Roadways Ltd vs. Prasad Trading Co., AIR 1992 SC 1514 and the other judgments are concerned, the same are at a different factual footing, addressing a different issue. The contention of the Learned counsel for the defendant feeds on the perception that mere placing/ issuance of purchase orders from a particular place would not confer any jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 277 - M F Beevi - Full Document

A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989

Appalaswami Naidu, AIR 1946 Mad 300; A.B. C. Laminar Pvt Ltd. vs. A. P. Agencies Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239; Manohar Oil Mills vs. Bhawani Din, AIR 1971 All 326; Bhagwandas vs. Giridharlal & Co., AIR 1966 SC 543; Chandradhar Goswami vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 1058; and Vijay Mital vs. Bajaj Products CS (OS) No.754/2006 dated 17.09.2015 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while contending that the cause of action cannot be assumed to have been accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court simply because the purchase orders were issued from the said office. It is the contention that merely placing an order would not confer jurisdiction and it is the place of acceptance i.e. Chandni Chowk in this case where the contract is concluded and as such, filing of this suit with this Court would be bad/ defective for want of territorial jurisdiction. He has contended that in a suit like this, the jurisdiction can only be at the following places:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1151 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1   2 3 Next