<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1951 (9) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97140</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction over a corporation is governed by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: the suit may be filed at the corporation&#039;s principal place of business or where the cause of action arises and it has a subordinate office. A transfer of the former Lahore office to New Delhi, or correspondence stating that the claim would be examined by the New Delhi office, did not by itself create jurisdiction in Delhi or amount to a cause of action there. A contractual warranty clause could not override the statutory jurisdictional requirements. The Delhi courts were therefore held to lack territorial jurisdiction, and the jurisdictional objection was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:55:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (9) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97140</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction over a corporation is governed by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: the suit may be filed at the corporation&#039;s principal place of business or where the cause of action arises and it has a subordinate office. A transfer of the former Lahore office to New Delhi, or correspondence stating that the claim would be examined by the New Delhi office, did not by itself create jurisdiction in Delhi or amount to a cause of action there. A contractual warranty clause could not override the statutory jurisdictional requirements. The Delhi courts were therefore held to lack territorial jurisdiction, and the jurisdictional objection was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>