TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Baraset Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit for prompt dower money on the footing that the plaintiff resided within its jurisdiction and, in the absence of any express place of payment, the debt was payable at the creditor's residence.
Analysis: A suit on contract may be instituted where the contract was to be performed or where the money sued for was expressly or impliedly payable, as contemplated by Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On the facts found, no express promise to pay at Bijpore or elsewhere was proved, and no particular place of payment could be inferred from the contract itself. The rule recognised in English law, and treated by the Court as applicable in India, is that where no place of payment is fixed, the debtor must seek out the creditor and pay him, provided the creditor resides within the realm. The earlier contrary view that Section 49 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 excluded such inference was treated as not governing the present case in light of the Privy Council decision in Soniram Jeetmull v. R.D. Tata and Co.
Conclusion: The Baraset Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the finding against jurisdiction was erroneous.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree dismissing the suit on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction was set aside, and the matter was remanded for decision on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for money payable under a contract, where no place of payment is fixed by agreement and the creditor resides within the jurisdiction, the debtor is to seek out the creditor and the place of the creditor's residence may constitute the place of performance for territorial jurisdiction purposes.
TaxTMI 
