Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
JYOTI SINGH
Dilbar Singh Negi – Appellant
Versus
Footwear Design & Development Institute – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of petitioners’ employment and termination. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. respondent's objections to petition’s maintainability. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. alternative remedy under arbitration act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. interpretation of article 226 on territorial jurisdiction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. significance of 'cause of action’ and jurisdiction. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. clarification on jurisdiction criteria for writ petitions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. analysis of petitioners’ attempts to establish jurisdiction. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. conclusion on lack of territorial jurisdiction. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 9. dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 10. no opinion on merits of the case expressed. (Para 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Petitioners herein assail a communication dated 01.07.2020 issued by the Respondents by which allegedly the services of the Petitioners were dispensed with and also seek a direction to the Respondents to retain them on the posts held by them with all benefits as regular employees.
2. At the outset, FDDI has raised an objection to the maintainability of the petition on ground of lack of territorial jurisdi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
