Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Aligarh Muslim Univiersity ... vs Vinay Engineering Entreprises (P) on 27 September, 1993
10. The petitioner submits that Annexure P-5 an information relating to disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner's wife was supplied to his wife at Jabalpur, therefore, this Court would have jurisdiction. He further submits that on two earlier occasions, he was posted at Jabalpur and as during his ailment, he was treated at Jabalpur, therefore, this Court would have the jurisdiction. He also submits that his movement order was issued after his discharge to come to Jabalpur, therefore, this Court would have jurisdiction. Smt. Nair, learned counsel for respondents submits that the information given to the wife cannot be treated to be an integral part of the cause of action and similarly his earlier postings at Jabalpur or his treatment at Jabalpur when he had suffered certain ailments would also not give any jurisdiction to this Court. She submits that as per the service conditions a retired or discharged employee is entitled to go back to his home-town at the State expenses, therefore, in accordance with the said policy if the movement order is given to such an employee to go to his home-town, the Court of home-town would have no jurisdiction. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Aligarh Muslim University and another Vs. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. and another [(1994) 4 SCC 710], and Oil & Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basil and others [(1994) 4SCC711], and South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. NavBharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and others [(1996) 3 SCC 443]. It is submitted that simple service of an order, notice or so would not confer jurisdiction upon the said Court. In the matter of Aligarh Muslim University, the Supreme Court observed that simply because the petitioner resided or was based at Calcutta, the Calcutta Court would have no jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. In the matter of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Supreme Court again observed that the mere fact that the
petitioner-company had its registered office at Calcutta, the Calcutta Court would have no jurisdiction because the advertisements inviting tenders at Delhi for works to be executed at Gujrat, no cause of action or part of cause of action accrued in Calcutta territories.
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994
10. The petitioner submits that Annexure P-5 an information relating to disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner's wife was supplied to his wife at Jabalpur, therefore, this Court would have jurisdiction. He further submits that on two earlier occasions, he was posted at Jabalpur and as during his ailment, he was treated at Jabalpur, therefore, this Court would have the jurisdiction. He also submits that his movement order was issued after his discharge to come to Jabalpur, therefore, this Court would have jurisdiction. Smt. Nair, learned counsel for respondents submits that the information given to the wife cannot be treated to be an integral part of the cause of action and similarly his earlier postings at Jabalpur or his treatment at Jabalpur when he had suffered certain ailments would also not give any jurisdiction to this Court. She submits that as per the service conditions a retired or discharged employee is entitled to go back to his home-town at the State expenses, therefore, in accordance with the said policy if the movement order is given to such an employee to go to his home-town, the Court of home-town would have no jurisdiction. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Aligarh Muslim University and another Vs. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. and another [(1994) 4 SCC 710], and Oil & Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basil and others [(1994) 4SCC711], and South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. NavBharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and others [(1996) 3 SCC 443]. It is submitted that simple service of an order, notice or so would not confer jurisdiction upon the said Court. In the matter of Aligarh Muslim University, the Supreme Court observed that simply because the petitioner resided or was based at Calcutta, the Calcutta Court would have no jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. In the matter of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Supreme Court again observed that the mere fact that the
petitioner-company had its registered office at Calcutta, the Calcutta Court would have no jurisdiction because the advertisements inviting tenders at Delhi for works to be executed at Gujrat, no cause of action or part of cause of action accrued in Calcutta territories.
M/S South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd vs M/S Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 13 March, 1996
10. The petitioner submits that Annexure P-5 an information relating to disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner's wife was supplied to his wife at Jabalpur, therefore, this Court would have jurisdiction. He further submits that on two earlier occasions, he was posted at Jabalpur and as during his ailment, he was treated at Jabalpur, therefore, this Court would have the jurisdiction. He also submits that his movement order was issued after his discharge to come to Jabalpur, therefore, this Court would have jurisdiction. Smt. Nair, learned counsel for respondents submits that the information given to the wife cannot be treated to be an integral part of the cause of action and similarly his earlier postings at Jabalpur or his treatment at Jabalpur when he had suffered certain ailments would also not give any jurisdiction to this Court. She submits that as per the service conditions a retired or discharged employee is entitled to go back to his home-town at the State expenses, therefore, in accordance with the said policy if the movement order is given to such an employee to go to his home-town, the Court of home-town would have no jurisdiction. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Aligarh Muslim University and another Vs. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. and another [(1994) 4 SCC 710], and Oil & Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basil and others [(1994) 4SCC711], and South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. NavBharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and others [(1996) 3 SCC 443]. It is submitted that simple service of an order, notice or so would not confer jurisdiction upon the said Court. In the matter of Aligarh Muslim University, the Supreme Court observed that simply because the petitioner resided or was based at Calcutta, the Calcutta Court would have no jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. In the matter of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Supreme Court again observed that the mere fact that the
petitioner-company had its registered office at Calcutta, the Calcutta Court would have no jurisdiction because the advertisements inviting tenders at Delhi for works to be executed at Gujrat, no cause of action or part of cause of action accrued in Calcutta territories.
Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 52 in The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Swaika Properties & Anr on 8 April, 1985
9. The petitioner submits that a fair reading of the judgment in the matter of Swaika Properties (supra) would show that if the service of the notice or its effect or consequences are integral part of the cause of action, then the Court within whose jurisdiction the notices have been served would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Contending contrary to this submission, Smt. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a simple service of" the notice at the place of the residence of such a petitioner would not be integral part of the cause of action and as such this Court would have no jurisdiction.
The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959
1