Judgments - Jurisdiction
SHREE VIJAYA FABRICS THR VIMLAWANTI MANCHANDA VERSUS SHIVANI KHANNA & ANR
DR. ARUN KUMAR MISHRA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
DEEPAK KHOSLA VERSUS NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS
ANIL KUMAR HAJELAY & ORS VERSUS HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RWA WEST JYOTI NAGAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER EDMC & ANR
Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Kumar Gupta Versus The State of Bihar and Ors
M/S Magma Fincorp Ltd. versus Rajesh Kumar Tiwari
Rajkumar Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Approver who has been granted pardon under Section 306(1) of the CrPC can be released on bail in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC Full Judgment
M/S MEYER APPAREL LTD VERSUS M/S PANCHANAN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD
Devendra Rajoriya Vs. State of M.P. and others
FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT - IND VERSUS KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK
Vice Chancellor, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Hindi Viswavidyalaya, Bhopal Vs. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Anusuchit Jati Aayog & another
MAGNUM INTERNATONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VERSUS VIKAS DHAWAN & ORS
ASHOK MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD. ANR VERSUS ATUL NATH & ORS
HAV. SHAM DASS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Nandlal Gupta Versus Union of India
UMC Technologies Private Limited Versus Food Corporation of India and another
PRADIP MITTAL S/O KAUSHAL KISHORE MITTAL Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS
From the ratio laid down in the above judgment, it is clear that the main determinative factor for deciding the place of offence is the place where the offence has actually taken place. It is also observed in the said judgment that when it is certain where exactly the offence under Section 13 of the PC Act is committed, it is an unnecessary exercise to ponder over the other areas wherein certain allied activities such as conspiracy or preparation had Full Judgment
MALATI SARDAR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
The question for consideration thus is whether the Tribunal at Kolkata had the jurisdiction to decide the claim application under Section 166 of the Act when the accident took place outside Kolkata jurisdiction and the claimant also resided outside Kolkata jurisdiction, but the respondent being a juristic person carried on business at Kolkata. Further question is whether in absence of Full Judgment