Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (1.70 seconds)
Karthi P Chidambaram vs Superintendent Of Police on 22 August, 2017 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001

.... From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner-appellant, would or would not constitute a part of the cause of action, one has to consider whether such facts constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless, it must be a part of cause of action, nothing less than that.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 371 - Full Document

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 1 August, 2014

15. The judgment in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v.State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129 has categorically held that "the civil law concept of 'part of cause of action' cannot be borrowed for the purpose of ascertaining jurisdiction in criminal matters". The fact that the said case arose from an offence under the Negotiable Instrument Act is a mere co-incidence and irrespective of the penal act involved, the ratio of Dashrath Rupsingh case (supra) would not change. The Attempts made on the part of the petitioner to distinguish the said judgment on the said ground is unsustainable in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 805 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next