Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN
K.P. Pankaj (Keshav Prasad Pankaj) Government Contactor And Suppliers – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, District Urban Development Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant in Original Suit No. 244 of 2018 (K.P. Pankaj @ Keshav Prasad Pankaj vs. Chairman, District Urban Development Authority, Kushinagar and others) against the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3, Gorakhpur, whereby the plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that, as per the terms of the tender, the disputes were to be adjudicated by the competent court at Kushinagar, whereas the plaintiff has filed the suit before the Court at Gorakhpur, which was legally not maintainable.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that a tender was published by the defendants in local newspapers of Gorakhpur on 09.12.2013 and 10.12.2013 for the supply of construction materials for road construction. The plaintiff firm applied pursuant to the said tender which was accepted, and consequently, 13 work orders were awarded to the plaintiff from time to time. On 30.06.2014, the defendants awarded a work order to the plaintiff for
Territorial jurisdiction in civil matters is determined by the location of the cause of action, and a court lacking jurisdiction must return the plaint for presentation to an appropriate court instea....
Jurisdiction in contract disputes depends on where significant acts occurred, not solely on contractual jurisdiction clauses.
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 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 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 Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document....
A court lacking jurisdiction must return the plaint for presentation to the proper court rather than reject it, following established legal principles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of territorial jurisdiction under section 20 of the CPC, emphasizing the significance of the location of the contract's making and ....
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
