Jurisdiction - Apart from the exclusive jurisdiction
clause vesting jurisdiction in the Courts of Athens, no part of cause of action concerning the contract arose in Delhi or for that matter in India - Entire cause of action was in Athens - As
held above, issuance of the bank guarantee from Delhi is not a part of the cause of action and territorial jurisdiction cannot be determined with reference to the said fact - Plaint filed by
the plaintiff is directed to be returned to be filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction in Athens. D(182) P.L.R.
Jurisdiction - Bank guarantee has been issued by the Bank
of India whosehead office is at Bombay through duly constituted attorney of the bank at Chandigarh - Ought not to
be understood that no part of cause of action arises at Chandigarh where the branch office has issued the bank guarantee for performance of some transactions by the defendant with the
plaintiff-Company having its office at Chandigarh - Chandigarh Courts have jurisdiction. ..744.
Jurisdiction - Passing off action - Respondent/defendant
had in the notice clearly stated that it had sold the goods under the said trade mark "HERITAGE" directly or indirectly throughout the length and breadth of the country which, obviously,
would include Delhi as well - Whether the respondent/defendant can explain this admission and explain the circumstances so that it is not bound by it is a matter for trial - But at
thisprima-facie, J.)stage, the appellant/plaintiff has founded his cause of action on passing off on this admission on
the part of the respondent/defendant and it is immaterial that the appellant/plaintiff had in its reply to the notice taken a contrary view. (175) P.L.R.(Del.)
Jurisdiction - Plea of - An issue of jurisdiction is
invariably taken at the preliminary stage and it cannot be a matter for issue for consideration at the second appeal if there had been otherwise a substantive consideration of all the issues
before the trial court - Both the courts below adverted to the case on merits as pleaded by the plaintiff and I do not think the case must be detained only on the issue of jurisdiction. (180)
Jurisdiction - Remaining silent on legal issues, would
not mean that the court could assume its jurisdiction or jurisdiction could be vested with it - Even if no objection had been raised by the other side, the legal aspect could/should have been
taken into consideration by the Commissioner suo motu - No order can be passed in cases which are not maintainable or where the court has no jurisdiction or where the claim is barred by
limitation - Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) - Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (178) P.L.R.
Jurisdiction - Service agreement - If the plaintiff was
entering into a contract to do service for a company in foreign country at India through communication exchanged by e-mail and one of the parties which granted service agreement to the
plaintiff was in England and the choice was being restricted, it will be understood as cause of action arising in England as well in India and the parties have opted for restrictive
jurisdiction to exclude jurisdiction in one of the places where cause of action arises, namely, in India - Here the conferment of jurisdiction was in a country, which admittedly had the
jurisdiction - It is not as if the Indian courts did not have the jurisdiction but the parties consciously excluded it.(180) P.L.R.
Jurisdiction - Since the ejectment order had already been passed before
institution of the suit and the plaintiffs themselves have not staked their claim on the basis of tenancy in the present case, therefore jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot he ousted.
Jurisdiction - Whilst it may be true that disputes
between OnePlus and Cyangone have to be resolved in the Courts of Northern District of California, but that would not mean that in a dispute between Micromax and OnePlus, the agreement
between OnePlus and Cyanogen cannot be looked into by a Court in India - It is trite that while interpreting a contractual obligation between `A' and `B' a Court would not ordinarily
interpret the contract to compel either `A' or `B' to be in breach of its agreement with `C'. (177) P.L.R.(Del.)