Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
HIRDESH
Sunil Lulla – Appellant
Versus
Nirmala Janki Cinemas Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Mhow, District-Indore in Civil Suit No.8- B/2013, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the office bearers of M/s. Eros International Media Ltd., Mumbai engaged in the business of purchasing and distributing the films. The respondent No.1 filed a civil suit before the court at Mhow, District- Indore against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the recovery of amount of Rs.74,11,600/- on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 happens to be a limited company and are engaged in the business of commission agent in the film distribution, sale and purchase of films and they receive 2% as the commission in the process but in the present case this commission was 1.5%. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.2 and 3) produced a film “Teri Meri Kahani” which was to be distributed throughout
Jurisdiction depends on the actual location of cause of action, not merely on where communications occur; e-mails do not constitute cause of action.
The court clarified that territorial jurisdiction must be based on where substantive negotiations occurred, not merely on correspondence or registered office locations.
Point of Law : Return of plaint – Jurisdiction of Court- Work Contract - Cause of action for the institution of the suit has arisen at Raipur where the alleged contract was executed Hence Court has j....
The validity of the jurisdiction clause in an agreement and the determination of cause of action based on the place of goods supply and payment location.
The issue of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact, and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
The interpretation of the expression 'carries on business' in the context of the plaintiff under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957, and the restrictions on the plaintiff's right t....
A High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires that part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
Part of the cause of action for filing the suit had accrued in Delhi due to the business transactions between the parties, establishing territorial jurisdiction in Delhi.
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
