Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. VS Sanjay Dalia...
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. VS Sanjay Dalia - 2015 5 Supreme 88 : Yes, a plaintiff can file a suit in a court having jurisdiction where he is residing, carrying on business, or personally working for gain, provided that the cause of action has arisen wholly or in part at that place. Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, along with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allow a plaintiff to institute a suit at a place where he resides or carries on business, but this right is subject to the condition that if the plaintiff''''s principal place of business or residence coincides with the place where the cause of action has arisen, the suit must be filed at that place and not at a distant location where only a subordinate office exists. The provisions are intended to prevent inconvenience to the plaintiff but do not permit filing a suit at a place where no cause of action has arisen, even if the plaintiff has a branch office there.Checking relevance for Y. Narasimha VS Y. Venkatalakshmi...
Checking relevance for Om Hemrajani VS State Of U. P. ...
Om Hemrajani VS State Of U. P. - 2004 8 Supreme 373 : Yes, the plaintiff (complainant) can file a complaint in a court having jurisdiction where they are residing. Under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., a victim who has suffered an offence committed outside India by an Indian citizen can approach any court in India that is otherwise competent, particularly one convenient to them. The convenience of the victim, not the accused, is the determining factor. It is not required for the complainant to specify where the accused may be found; it is sufficient to allege that the accused may be found in India. The court where the complaint is filed and where the accused appears (voluntarily or through execution of warrants) becomes the competent court under Section 188, regardless of the accused''''s residence. Therefore, the plaintiff can file the complaint in a court within their own jurisdiction, even if the accused is not residing there.Checking relevance for Mohanakumaran Nair VS Vijayakumaran Nair...
Mohanakumaran Nair VS Vijayakumaran Nair - 2007 7 Supreme 518 : A plaintiff cannot file a suit in a court having jurisdiction where he is residing, unless the cause of action has arisen in that jurisdiction. While the plaintiff is the ''''dominus litus'''' (master of the suit), he can only file a suit at one or the other places specified under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and not at any place where he desires. The doctrine of dominus litus does not apply when invoking Section 20 of the CPC, which deals with territorial jurisdiction based on the defendant''''s residence. The maintainability of a suit must be determined with reference to the date of institution of the suit, and a subsequent change of residence does not confer territorial jurisdiction on a court that lacked it at the time of filing.Checking relevance for Y. Narasimha Rao VS Y. Venkata Lakshmi...
Checking relevance for Priya Indoria VS State Of Karnataka And Ors. Etc. ...
Checking relevance for Turner Morrison And Company LTD. VS Hungerford Investment. Trust LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Nirman Sagar VS Monika Sagar Chaudhari...
Checking relevance for Houzz Inc VS Mahendra Singh Rathore...
Checking relevance for Houzz Inc VS Mahendra Singh Rathore...
Checking relevance for Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. VS S & D Hospitality...
Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. VS S & D Hospitality - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5049 : Yes, a plaintiff can file a suit in a court having jurisdiction where he is residing, carrying on business, or personally works for gain, provided the cause of action has arisen wholly or in part at that place. However, if the plaintiff''''s principal place of business and the cause of action both arise at a particular place, the suit must be filed at that place and not at a distant location where only a branch office exists and no cause of action has arisen. The provisions of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 20 of the CPC allow for such jurisdictional flexibility, but this right is subject to the restriction that the plaintiff cannot bypass the place where both the principal place of business and the cause of action exist, even if the plaintiff has subordinate offices elsewhere.Checking relevance for Cable News Network INC VS CTVN Calcutta Television Network Pvt. Ltd. ...
Cable News Network INC VS CTVN Calcutta Television Network Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 541 : Yes, a plaintiff can file a suit in the court having jurisdiction where he is residing, carrying on business, or personally working for gain, as provided under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. However, this right is subject to a key caveat: if the cause of action has arisen at a place where the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business, the suit must be filed at that place and not at a distant place where the plaintiff may have a subordinate office, even if the plaintiff is carrying on business there. The Supreme Court in IPRS14 emphasized that the provisions of Section 134(2) were intended to provide convenience to the plaintiff by allowing suit at a place of residence or business, but not to enable the plaintiff to bypass the place where the cause of action has arisen. Thus, the plaintiff may file suit at the place of residence only if the cause of action has not arisen there; if it has, the suit must be filed at that place, not at a subordinate office location.
