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

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 81452

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HDFC BANK LTD AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
KULDEEP GHARU – Respondent


5. Upon considera(cid:15)on of the rival submissions, the learned trial Court dismissed the applica(cid:15)on, holding that the objec(cid:15)on as to jurisdic(cid:15)on had not been raised at the earliest and stood waived, and further that the cause of ac(cid:15)on had arisen at Jalandhar, thereby conferring jurisdic(cid:15)on upon the trial Court.

6. Assailing the said order, learned counsel for the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner has argued that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the binding nature of the exclusive jurisdic(cid:15)on clause contained in the employment agreement and that once par(cid:15)es had agreed to confer jurisdic(cid:15)on upon the Courts at Mumbai, the plaint ought to have been rejected at the threshold.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner and perused the record, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision pe(cid:15)(cid:15)on.

8. It is an admi(ed posi(cid:15)on that the defendant had already filed wri(en statement and par(cid:15)cipated in the proceedings before raising the objec(cid:15)on regarding territorial jurisdic(cid:15)on. The applica(cid:15)on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC came to be filed at a belated stage when

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