Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Bhagerath Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2018
The said decision has been upheld by Division
Bench in batch of Writ Appeals: Rajesh Mahton &
Another vs. State of M.P. & Others in Writ Appeal
No.330/2018; Pawan Arora vs. State of M.P. in Writ
Appeal No.331/2018; Mahendra Singh vs. State of
M.P. in Writ Appeal No.332/2018 and Rakesh Yadav vs.
State of M.P. in Writ Appeal No.333/2018 decided on
10/04/2018.
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Nirmal Kumar Chordia And Ors. on 17 November, 1988
WP-27398-2018
Thus, the judgement in Nirmal
Kumar Chordia (supra) is of no assistance
to the petitioners.
Kana Ram And Etc. Etc. vs The Regional Transport Authority And ... on 17 January, 1989
In Kana Ram (supra), the Rajasthan
High Court in the given facts of the said
case observed that the permit having
been granted by the Regional Transport
Authority of one State (Rajasthan) and is
to be countersigned by the Regional
Transport Authority of other State
(Haryana), a part of cause of action has
to be origin in either of the two States.
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 September, 2000
In Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others [(2000)
7 SCC 640], it is held:-
Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001
In Union of India and others Vs.
Adani Exports Ltd. and another [(2002) 1
SCC 567], it is held:-
Nawal Kishore Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 August, 2014
In Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union
of India and others [(2014) 9 SCC 329], it
is held by their Lordships:-
M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004
The preliminary objection raised on
behalf of the respondents as to
maintainability of present petitions, when
tested on the anvil of the law laid down
by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots
(supra) deserves to be upheld.
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.
Bhagat Singh Bugga vs Dewan Jagbir Sawhney on 28 January, 1941
"30. 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 Bhagat
Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir
Sawhney, AIR 1941 Cal 670;