<?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>1976 (2) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99274</link>
    <description>A jurisdictional objection is not waived merely because a defendant appears and files a written statement on the merits, provided the objection is expressly taken; the Bombay HC relied on that principle to hold that the bank had not submitted to jurisdiction. It also treated Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code as rules of municipal jurisdiction, not as a basis for unlimited jurisdiction over foreign corporations. A foreign corporation&#039;s office in Bombay, or its statutory registration and business presence there, did not by itself confer territorial jurisdiction where the entire cause of action arose outside India. The suit was therefore held not maintainable in Bombay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:42:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (2) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99274</link>
      <description>A jurisdictional objection is not waived merely because a defendant appears and files a written statement on the merits, provided the objection is expressly taken; the Bombay HC relied on that principle to hold that the bank had not submitted to jurisdiction. It also treated Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code as rules of municipal jurisdiction, not as a basis for unlimited jurisdiction over foreign corporations. A foreign corporation&#039;s office in Bombay, or its statutory registration and business presence there, did not by itself confer territorial jurisdiction where the entire cause of action arose outside India. The suit was therefore held not maintainable in Bombay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>