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

1973 Supreme(Kar) 207

SRINIVASA IYENGAR, GOVINDA BHAT
BOMBAY GOODS CARRIERS (P) LTD – Appellant
Versus
SHAMULTHANMUL HASTIMAL AND SONS – Respondent


Advocates:
P.Krishnappa, S.PRAMILA

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been referred to a Bench by Datar, J. on the ground that a question of law is involved in regard to the right of a party to file a suit in a particular Court, and as similar matter arose in crp. No. 1133/72.

( 2 ) THE Revision Petition No. 1133/72 has been disposed of by us by a separate order dated 6-8-1973.

( 3 ) THE facts and circumstances in the instant case are somewhat different from those in that case. In the instant case, the respondent-plaintiff entrusted certain goods for carriage from Bangalore to Agra to the defendants. The contention raised by the defendants was that on the reverse of G. C. Note No. 5772 dt. 12-3-1970, there was a term that all claims and matters arising under the consignment should be settled in courts at Bombay, and therefore the suit filed in the Small Causes Court at Bangalore was not maintainable. The learned Small Causes Judge came to the conclusion that no part of the cause of action accrued at Bombay and therefore the Court at Bombay cannot have jurisdiction to try the suit and the parties merely agreeing that only Courts at Bombay would have jurisdiction to settle the claims would be of no effect.

( 4 ) THE pri




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