Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.79 seconds)M/S Shree Ram Agro Industries vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2021
"(f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of
forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action
are required to be scrutinized by the High Court
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Bench At Indore
W.P No.11264/2021
(M/s Shree Ram Agro Industries Vs. State of MP) 8
depending upon the factual matrix of each case in
view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries
(supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra). "
Alchemist Limited And Another vs State Bank Of Sikkim And Others on 16 March, 2007
In addition, (2007) 11 SCC 335 (Alchemist Ltd. Vs State
Bank of Sikkim) is relied upon. It is apt to quote para 16:-
Smt. Malini Mukesh Vora vs Union Of India And Ors on 3 July, 2009
In rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment Malini Mukesh
Vora (supra) to clarify the judgment of the Apex Court in Kusum
Ingots (supra).
M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004
"31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally
means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to
see the convenience of all the parties before it. The
convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the
existence of more appropriate forum, expenses
involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of
certain facts which are necessitous for just
adjudication of the controversy and such other
ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also
to be taken note of. Be it noted, the Apex Court has
clearly stated in the cases of Kusum Ingots (supra),
Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra) and Ambica Industries
(supra) about the applicability of the doctrine of
forum conveniens while opining that arising of a part
of cause of action would entitle the High Court to
entertain the writ petition as maintainable."
Om Prakash Srivastava vs Union Of India Thr. C.B.I. & Ors on 13 January, 2009
7. Sounding a contra note, learned counsel for the
respondent/state reiterated his aforesaid objection and cited the
following judgments of the Apex Court and judgment of this
Court:- Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd Vs. Union of India and Ors
reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254, Om Prakash Shrivastava Vs.
Union of India and Ors reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207, Nawal
Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 9 SCC
329, Munni Lal Vs. State of MP passed in WP No.8228/2016 and
Munni Lal s. State of MP passed in WA No.154/2017.
M/S Embassy Property Developments Pvt. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2019
"(f) While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of
forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action
are required to be scrutinized by the High Court
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Bench At Indore
W.P No.11264/2021
(M/s Shree Ram Agro Industries Vs. State of MP) 8
depending upon the factual matrix of each case in
view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries
(supra) and Adani Exports Ltd. (supra). "
Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs The Union Of India & Another on 5 December, 1960
29. In view of clause 2 of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India now if a part of cause of action
arises outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, it
would have jurisdiction to issue a writ. The decision in
Khajoor Singh (supra) has, thus, no application.
M/S. S. Jain & Company vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 November, 2008
30. Forum Conveniens We must, however, remind
ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action
arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a
determinative factor compelling the High Court to
decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the
Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum
conveniens. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir
Sawhany, AIR 1941 Cal; Mandal Jalan v. Madanlal,
(1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v.
M/s Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997)
CWN 122; S.S.Jain & Co. & Anr. v. Union of India &
Ors. (1994) CHN 445; M/s. New Horizon Ltd. v. Union
of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 126) "
M/S. New Horizons Limited And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 15 October, 1993
30. Forum Conveniens We must, however, remind
ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action
arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a
determinative factor compelling the High Court to
decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the
Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum
conveniens. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir
Sawhany, AIR 1941 Cal; Mandal Jalan v. Madanlal,
(1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v.
M/s Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997)
CWN 122; S.S.Jain & Co. & Anr. v. Union of India &
Ors. (1994) CHN 445; M/s. New Horizon Ltd. v. Union
of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 126) "