Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs Prasad Trading Company on 6 August, 1991
8. The next argument urged on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff was that since the respondent no.1/defendant no. 1
has a head office/corporate office in Delhi, therefore, this Court would
have territorial jurisdiction. This Court need not labor at length on this
aspect because the issue is now well settled against the
appellant/plaintiff for now over 27 years in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Patel Roadways Limited (supra) and
which holds that a mere plea of existence of a head office or a
corporate office of a defendant company will not confer jurisdiction on
a court if the defendant company has a branch office at the place where
whole or part of cause of acting has arisen. In the present case, it is not
disputed that the respondent no.1/ defendant no. 1 has an office at
Bhagalpur in Bihar from where the Hindi newspaper Hindustan is
published.
Jaharlal Pagalia vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 20 May, 1958
7. Facts of the judgment in the case of Jaharlal Pagalia
(supra) in no manner applies to the facts of the present case, inasmuch
as, the said case did not pertain to any suit for defamation and arising
of whole or part of cause of action for defamation merely because of
giving/taking of an interview. As already stated above, it is only
FAO No.257/2017 Page 5 of 7
publication which results in defamation and without publication there
is no defamation.
Section 19 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1