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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.