Disposed

Ankit Kalra v. Hunny Gupta

Delhi HC12 Jul 2016CS(OS)/954/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Joint Registrar dismissed an objection regarding the wrong forum and confirmed that the suit against a Ghaziabad resident is maintainable in the South District Court of Delhi, as the cause of action partially arose when a cheque was presented at a local branch.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Registry to send the complete case record to the District Judge (South), Saket Courts, for disposal on 16.08.2016.

Ankit Kalra Vs Hunny Gupta — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 954/2014

¶4

ANKIT KALRA ..... Plaintiff

¶5

Through Mr. Abhinav Ramakrishna and Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

HUNNY GUPTA ..... Defendant

¶8

Through Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA (DHJS), JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 12.07.2016

¶13

File has been received from the Office of District Judge (South) Saket Courts. I have perused the order dated 17.05.2016 wherein it has been stated that neither the subject matter of the suit lies nor the defendant is residing within the jurisdiction of South District and the suit has been sent back for allocation to the correct court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.

¶14

Ld. counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the suit was rightly transferred to the South District as the cheque issued by the defendant was presented by the plaintiff at ICICI Bank, Safdarjung Enclave Branch and part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the South District.

¶15

I have perused the record.

¶16

Perusal of the record shows that defendant is resident of Ghaziabad, U.P. and the matter cannot be transferred to Ghaziabad by

¶17

this Court. Section 20 of CPC provides for jurisdiction of the courts in cases other than covered by Section 15 to 19 of the CPC. The present suit is not covered u/S 15 to 19 of the CPC and is Governed by Section 20 of the CPC. Clause (c) of Section 20 provides that the court within whom jurisdiction cause of action, wholly or in part, arises has the jurisdiction to try the suit. Since, in the present case, a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of South District as the cheque issued by defendant was presented by the plaintiff in his bank situated at Safdarjung Enclave, the courts of South District have got jurisdiction to try the present suit.

¶18

Hence, the Registry is directed to send the complete record of this case to the Ld. District Judge (South), Saket Courts, Delhi for 16^th August, 2016 . Parties shall appear before the Ld. District Judge (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi on the said date.

¶19

ANIL KUMAR SISODIA (DHJS) JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)

¶20

JULY 12, 2016 savita

Ankit Kalra v. Hunny Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kalra v. Hunny Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashpal Gosain Vs Nand Kishore Gosain and Ors.

Radhey Shyam Vs Azad Singh

Rrb Energy Limited Vs Vestas Wind Systems & Anr.

Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs Brij Bhushan Tiwari

Rahul Bose Vs Piyal Bose

Prime Time India Ltd. Vs Ashok Kapoor and Ors. a+

Kamlesh Khanna Vs Gurcharan Lal Harjai & Ors.

Shital Singh & Others Vs Manmohan Singh & Others

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Veedyapeeth

M/S Kamdhenu Ispat Limited Vs M/S Surya Ispat

Subhash Sharma Vs Raj Khanna & Anr.

Rajinder Singh Dabas & Anr. Vs Sunil Kumar Jain

Sunil Kohli Vs Anil Kohli and Ors.

Hindustan Tin Works Limited Vs Makarwa Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.