Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs Central Bank Of India Ltd. on 6 April, 1960
26. There is no doubt that the central office of the Corporation being at Bombay the plaintiff, if she so chooses, can bring her suit at Bombay. The question is whether there is a subordinate office at Delhi. Assuming: that Delhi is a subordinate office but if no part of the cause of action has arisen at the place where the branch of subordinate office is situated the mere fact of the corporation having a branch office will not give the Court of that place jurisdiction to entertain a suit. The law is well settled that if no part of the cause of action arises at the place of the branch office, the mere fact of the Corporation having a branch office at the place will not give the Court jurisdiction: See Bhola Nath Aggarwal v. The Empire of India Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Air 1948 Lah 56; Bharat Insurance Co.. Delhi v. Wasudeo Ramchandra- Air 1956 Nag 203 and Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of India Ltd.. .
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 3 in The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
T.R.S. Mani vs I.R.P. (Radio) Private Ltd. on 8 February, 1962
29. T. R. S. Mani, (supra) on which the counsel relies is entirely distinguishable. In that case the letter of termination of the services gave rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff it is not so in the present case. I have already held that repudiation is not a part of the cause of action in a contract of insurance. The cause of action in respect of a contract arises in the way enacted by the explanation to the old Code of 1889.
1