Territorial Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Clarifies Territorial Jurisdiction in Specific Performance Suits: Rohit Kochhar vs. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. (26 November 2024)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 16, Immovable Property, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 22, Territorial Jurisdiction, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 55

Supreme Court Clarifies Territorial Jurisdiction in Specific Performance Suits: Rohit Kochhar vs. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the territorial jurisdiction of courts in suits for specific performance of contracts involving immovable property. CASE TYPE: Civil Suit – Specific Performance Case Name: Rohit Kochhar vs. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Territorial Jurisdiction in Specific Performance Suits: Rohit Kochhar vs. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. (26 November 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Civil Dispute: State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Kamal Agarwal (2024)

/ Criminal Procedure, Criminal Procedure with FIR, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Offences Against Property, Territorial Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Civil Dispute: State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Kamal Agarwal (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal FIR can be registered for a dispute that is essentially civil in nature, particularly concerning a financial transaction and property transfer. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: The State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Kamal Agarwal &

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Civil Dispute: State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Kamal Agarwal (2024) Read Post »

Territorial Jurisdiction in Shipping Disputes: Supreme Court Affirms Delhi Court’s Authority in Arcadia Shipping Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. (2024)

/ Bill of Lading, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order I Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order I Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 20, Shipping Law, Territorial Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Court’s Jurisdiction in Shipping Dispute: Arcadia Shipping Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining territorial jurisdiction in cases involving interconnected transactions of sale and shipment of goods. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: Arcadia Shipping Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Limited and Others. [Judgment Date]: April 16, 2024 Introduction Date of

Territorial Jurisdiction in Shipping Disputes: Supreme Court Affirms Delhi Court’s Authority in Arcadia Shipping Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in money laundering cases: Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 201, Code of Criminal Procedure with Sections 177 to 184, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 with Section 3, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 with Section 44(1), Special Courts under PMLA, Territorial Jurisdiction, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in money laundering cases: Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the territorial jurisdiction of Special Courts in cases of money laundering. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement Judgment Date: 7 February 2023 Date of the Judgment: 7 February 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in money laundering cases: Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Money Laundering Cases: Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 201, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 with Section 44, Special Courts, Territorial Jurisdiction, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Money Laundering Cases: Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the territorial jurisdiction of Special Courts in money laundering cases. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement Judgment Date: 7 February 2023 Date of the Judgment: 7 February 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 101

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Money Laundering Cases: Rana Ayyub vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses to Transfer Arbitration Case Based on Territorial Jurisdiction: Neilan International Co. Ltd. vs. Powerica Limited & Ors. (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 25, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Territorial Jurisdiction, Transfer Petition

Supreme Court Refuses to Transfer Arbitration Case Based on Territorial Jurisdiction Date of the Judgment: July 6, 2022 Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. Can the Supreme Court transfer a case based on a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of a lower court? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a transfer petition related to an

Supreme Court Refuses to Transfer Arbitration Case Based on Territorial Jurisdiction: Neilan International Co. Ltd. vs. Powerica Limited & Ors. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases: Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana (30 September 2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 177, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 462, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 26, Judges, Offences, Territorial Jurisdiction, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Addresses Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases: Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana (2020) Date of the Judgment: 30 September 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 716 Judges: Justice V. Ramasubramanian Can a criminal case be transferred simply because the accused claims the location of the crime doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the court where

Supreme Court clarifies territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases: Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana (30 September 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Objections to Territorial Jurisdiction in Execution Proceedings: Sneh Lata Goel vs. Pushplata & Ors. (2019) INSC 12

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 96, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Executing Court Jurisdiction, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Jurisdiction, Territorial Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Clarifies Objections to Territorial Jurisdiction in Execution Proceedings Date of the Judgment: January 7, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 12 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Hemant Gupta, J. Can an executing court review a decree based on objections to territorial jurisdiction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case,

Supreme Court Clarifies Objections to Territorial Jurisdiction in Execution Proceedings: Sneh Lata Goel vs. Pushplata & Ors. (2019) INSC 12 Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Rehearing in Compensation Case Due to Lack of Opportunity to be Heard: Mohd. Anwar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Employees Compensation Act, 1923, Employees Compensation Act, 1923 with Section 3, Judges, Principles of Natural Justice, R.K. Agrawal, Territorial Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Orders Rehearing in Compensation Case Due to Lack of Opportunity to be Heard: Mohd. Anwar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can set aside an order of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner without providing the affected party an opportunity to be heard. CASE TYPE: Employees’ Compensation Law Case

Supreme Court Orders Rehearing in Compensation Case Due to Lack of Opportunity to be Heard: Mohd. Anwar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Nishant Aggarwal vs. Kailash Kumar Sharma (2013)

/ Cheque Dishonor, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 177, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 178, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 179, Jagdish Singh Khehar, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, P. Sathasivam, Territorial Jurisdiction

Date of the Judgment: July 1, 2013 Citation: 2013 INSC 478 Judges: P. Sathasivam, J., Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Can a court where a cheque is deposited for collection have jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a dispute between Nishant Aggarwal and Kailash Kumar Sharma. The core issue

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Nishant Aggarwal vs. Kailash Kumar Sharma (2013) Read Post »

Scroll to Top