Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Shreyas Construction – Appellant
Versus
An Infrastructure Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – original plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) [hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”] in Special Civil Suit No. 176 of 1995 whereby the trial Court has dismissed the suit.
2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-
2.1 It is the case of the appellant that the appellant - plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying the business of engineers and contractors and the respondent - defendant is a Limited Company incorporated under the companies Act and the appellant invited the tender for the work of lowering, laying and jointing of A.C. pipes amounting to Rs. 10,78, 559/-, which came to be accepted by the respondent and the agreement was executed at Ahmedabad on 12.07.1989 between the parties. It is further averred that the Bank Guarantee was furnished towards the security deposit and the work was required to be completed within 167 days, but the work could be completed in 832 days due to the breach of the contract as the resp
The court emphasized that the proper jurisdiction for a suit arising from a contract is where the contract was executed and the work performed, highlighting the fallacy in dismissing the suit without....
A court cannot be denied jurisdiction by an agreement between parties if that court is competent to adjudicate the matter based on where the breach occurred and the nature of the contract.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of territorial jurisdiction can be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
A plaintiff who unconditionally withdraws a suit without permission to refile cannot institute a fresh suit on the same subject matter, per Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of CPC.
The plaintiff must substantiate claims with clear evidence; failure to do so renders the trial court's decree arbitrary and subject to remand.
The judgment clarified the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the application of the Limitation Act, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim losses incurred due to non-cooperation from the defend....
The rejection of a plaint based on misjoinder of parties and causes of action is erroneous, and disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of....
Jurisdictional objections to arbitration awards must be raised during proceedings, not at execution; failure to do so leads to unenforceable awards.
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
