Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962
21. While repudiating the claims of the petitioner, it was intimated to the petitioner that in case he is not satisfied with the decision of repudiation or if he feels that any particular fact and circumstances in support of his claim has not been considered, the representation may be sent by him to Zonal Office at New Delhi. Petitioner did sent his representations against the repudiation of his claims to the Zonal office at New Delhi which were not considered entailing filing of a writ petition by the petitioner which was also disposed of directing the respondents to forward the representation of the petitioner to their office at Mumbai. The representation of the petitioner was considered by the office of the respondents at Mumbai by a retired High Court Judge and other functionaries and decision to reject his claims was sustained which was communicated to the petitioner at his address at Jaipur by communication dated 30th November, 2004. After filing of writ petition at Delhi pursuant to the decision of which the representation was forwarded to Mumbai, will the Court at Delhi still have jurisdiction. The observation of the Supreme Court in in Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd will be relevant in the present facts and circumstances which are as under:
Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001
In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. , the Apex Court held that each and every fact pleaded will not give rise to a cause of action. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action within the Courts territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.
Kamla Chopra vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... on 6 December, 1973
In Smt. Kamla Chopra v. Life Corporation of India and Ors. , it was held as under:
Abdul Kafi Khan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 April, 1979
While coming to the aforesaid conclusion the Supreme Court relied upon and referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Abdul Kafi Khan v. Union of India and Ors. where it was held that when admittedly neither cause of action nor any part thereof ever arose or accrued within territorial jurisdiction and orders sought to be impeached passed by authorities outside territorial jurisdiction then the Court had no jurisdiction in view of Article 226(1).
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994
In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utapl Kumar Basu and Ors. the Supreme Court had held:
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Swaika Properties & Anr on 8 April, 1985
In State of Rajasthan v. Swaika properties the Supreme Court held that mere service of notice would not give rise to any cause of action unless service of notice was an integral part of the cause of action.
Sector Twenty-One Owners Welfare ... vs Air Force Naval Housing Board on 8 January, 1996
In Sector Twenty-one owners Welfare Association v. Air Force Naval Housing Board , a Division Bench of this Court has held that a trivial or insignificant part of the cause of action arising at a particular place would not be enough to confer writ jurisdiction on the Court to entertain the lis and deduced from various precedents that the emphasis has shifted from the residence or location of the person or authority sought to be proceeded against, to the situs of the accrual of cause of action. There is no reason why the observations pertaining to writ petitions should not be extrapolated and inter- changed between suits and writ petitioners. The Bench held as follows:
M/S South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd vs M/S Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 13 March, 1996
18. The choice of forum cannot be left at the whims and fancies of the litigants/parties. Jurisdiction of the court is attracted only by reason of entire cause of action or a part of cause of action arising within its territorial jurisdiction. Primacy has been given to the place where the cause of action has substantially arisen, as is evident from the decision of the Supreme Court in South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. . In this case the admitted position was that performance of the obligations and liabilities under the contract was to be carried out in Bombay. The Apex Court found it wholly irrelevant that the subject Bank Guarantee had been executed at Delhi and transmitted for performance to Bombay and held that Delhi Courts did not possess jurisdiction to decide the dispute. An analysis of the various pronouncements of the Supreme Court reveals that even though the express terms of Section 20 of the CPC permit the filing of a suit against a Corporation at its principal office, primacy and pre-eminence has been accorded to the place where the cause of action had substantially arisen, as against those places where it has incidentally or partially arisen.
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989
Whilst the Supreme Court has indubitably enumerated in ABC Laminart v. A.P. Agencies the several places where the cause of action could be seen to have arisen, this was done primarily to investigate and determine whether the place to which jurisdiction had been restricted, by ousting all others, itself enjoyed jurisdiction. Otherwise, as is trite, such a clause would become legally inefficacious since it is not possible to infuse by contract jurisdiction on Court which does not otherwise possess it. The position that obtains today is that primacy is accorded to the place where the cause of action substantially arises. The following passage of ABC Laminart is quite instructive: