SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 1484

A.S.ANAND, N.S.HEGDE, S.RAJENDRA BABU
Auto Engineering Works – Appellant
Versus
Bansal Trading Company – Respondent


( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on I. A. Nos. 1 and 2. Delay in filing the application (I. A. No. 2) to bring on record the legal representatives of the sole proprietor of the petitioner firm is condoned. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the legal representatives being brought on record. The application (I. A. No. 1) is accordingly, allowed. The index shall be corrected.

( 2 ) LEAVE granted.

( 3 ) THE appellant filed a suit in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, west Tripura (Agartala ). It was a money suit. The trial court held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. The trial court, however, declined to exercise power under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and did not return the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum, The appeal filed by the appellant before the high court failed on 28/11/1997. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial court fell in error in not directing the return of the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum and the high court also likewise fell



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top