Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Ku. Divya Tiwari vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 February, 2001 cites

Rajasthan High Court Advocates ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 December, 2000

9. The principal question that falls for consideration whether this Court has jurisdiction to delve into the controversy or not. Before I delve into the existing factual matrix of the present case, I think it apposite to refer to a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 416, wherein the Apex Court expressed thus :
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 384 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Snehalkumar Sarabhai vs Economic Transport Organisation And ... on 18 March, 1974

15. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it becomes graphically clear that parties can enter into a contract to oust the jurisdiction of a Court but such an agreement must have been reached on the basis of free consent. In absence of free consent it can be construed that such a clause is designed to operate as an engine of operation and as a means to defeat the ends of justice. At the cost of repetition, I may reiterate that unless free consent flows the Court has the authority to exercise jurisdiction if it has the inherent jurisdiction to try the controvery. In the case at hand it is not a contract between the parties but a Prospectus has been issued by the respondents. In the Prospectus certain "Notes" have been mentioned at the anterior of cover page. True it is, when a candidate appears in the examination is bound by the conditions laid down in the prospectus, but to require a candidate to agitate his grievance only in the Courts of Delhi, I am of the considered opinion, is totally unconscionable. It cannot be presumed that such a note has been issued on the foundation of ad idem. It has been stated at the Bar, the National Open School has Coordinators at various places in the country and in this context if a student is asked to travel to Delhi to file a litigation for redressal of his grievances that would be not only unfair but unequitable.
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989

I am conscious, the Apex Court in the case of ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has ruled that when the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other Courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. The aforesaid case was pertaining to a matter of contract which is in the commercial sphere. That apart, their Lordships have also given emphasis on the concept of ad idem. In the case at hand there the question of contract does not arise and the concept of ad idem cannot be inferred. That apart, a note of this nature cannot be regarded as binding on the students. In view of my analysis I repel the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Namdeo with regard to the ouster of jurisdiction of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1151 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1