Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Noida Mint Employees Union & Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 2 February, 2015 cites

M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004

3. I have had an occasion to consider the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of Courts for filing of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.(C) No. 1851/2013 titled as Bharat Electronic Technical Cadre Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.4.2013 and in which judgment, I have referred to the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee (2008) 3 SCC 456 and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254. The relevant paras of the judgment have been referred to show that every fact is not part of the cause of action but only those facts which are co-relatable to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, and are therefore an essential part of the cause of action, would be facts which if arise within the jurisdiction of this Court, would give territorial jurisdiction to this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 856 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Bharat Electronic Technical Cadre ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 April, 2013

3. I have had an occasion to consider the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of Courts for filing of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.(C) No. 1851/2013 titled as Bharat Electronic Technical Cadre Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.4.2013 and in which judgment, I have referred to the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee (2008) 3 SCC 456 and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254. The relevant paras of the judgment have been referred to show that every fact is not part of the cause of action but only those facts which are co-relatable to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, and are therefore an essential part of the cause of action, would be facts which if arise within the jurisdiction of this Court, would give territorial jurisdiction to this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors vs Kalyan Banerjee on 4 March, 2008

3. I have had an occasion to consider the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of Courts for filing of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.(C) No. 1851/2013 titled as Bharat Electronic Technical Cadre Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.4.2013 and in which judgment, I have referred to the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee (2008) 3 SCC 456 and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254. The relevant paras of the judgment have been referred to show that every fact is not part of the cause of action but only those facts which are co-relatable to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, and are therefore an essential part of the cause of action, would be facts which if arise within the jurisdiction of this Court, would give territorial jurisdiction to this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 82 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1