Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Krishna Lal Chawla vs State Of U.P. on 8 March, 2021
i. Union of India and Ors. Vs. Cipla Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2017)
5 SCC 262,
ii. Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in
(2021) 5 SCC 435
iii.
Shri K. Jayaram vs Bangalore Development Authority Rep By ... on 8 December, 2021
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1974
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Cipla Ltd. & Anr on 21 October, 2016
i. Union of India and Ors. Vs. Cipla Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2017)
5 SCC 262,
ii. Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in
(2021) 5 SCC 435
iii.
Section 20 in The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 [Entire Act]
Arathi Bandi vs Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors on 16 July, 2013
In Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao and Ors. this Court
noted that jurisdiction in a Court is not attracted by the operation or
creation of fortuitous circumstances. In tha t case, circumstances were
created by one of the parties to the dispute to confer jurisdiction on a
particular High Court. This was frowned upon by this Court by
observing that to allow the assumption of jurisdiction in created
circumstances would only result in encouraging forum shopping.
World Tanker Carrier Corporation vs Snp Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 20 April, 1998
150. Another case of creating circumstances for the purposes of forum
shopping was World Tanker Carrier Corporation v. SNP Shipping
Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. wherein it was observed that the
Respondent/Plaintiff had made a deliberate attempt to bring the
cause of action namely a collision between two vessels on the high
seas within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Bringing one of
the vessels to Bombay in order to confer jurisdiction on the Bombay
High Court had the character of forum shopping rather than anything
else.
M/S. Ambica Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 May, 2007
In Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central
Excise the Assessee was from Lucknow. It challenged an order
passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(the CESTAT) located in Delhi before the Delhi High Court. The
22
CESTAT had jurisdiction over the States of Uttar Pradesh, NCT of
Delhi and Maharashtra. The Delhi High Court did not entertain the
proceedings initiated by the Assessee for want of territorial
jurisdiction. Dismissing the Assessee's appeal this Court gave the
example of an Assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay
invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of
the law laid down by the Delhi High Court or an Assessee affected by
an order of assessment made at Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of
them Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down
by it and consequently evade the law laid down by the Bombay High
Court. It was said that this could not be allowed and circumstances
such as this would lead to some sort of judicial anarchy.