https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156979 Jurisdiction was examined on the basis that the cause of action substantially arose in Bombay, since the deposit was made through a Bombay cheque, credited in the defendant's Bombay bank account, and the post-dated cheques were drawn on and payable at Bombay. The Anand jurisdiction endorsement was treated as non-exclusive because it did not use clear words conferring exclusive jurisdiction, while objection was also raised under Clause XII of the Letters Patent and Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second issue concerned whether Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 could suspend or stay proceedings in Bombay and whether such suspension could extend to proceedings outside Gujarat. en-us Wed, 03 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156979 Jurisdiction was examined on the basis that the cause of action substantially arose in Bombay, since the deposit was made through a Bombay cheque, credited in the defendant's Bombay bank account, and the post-dated cheques were drawn on and payable at Bombay. The Anand jurisdiction endorsement was treated as non-exclusive because it did not use clear words conferring exclusive jurisdiction, while objection was also raised under Clause XII of the Letters Patent and Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second issue concerned whether Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 could suspend or stay proceedings in Bombay and whether such suspension could extend to proceedings outside Gujarat. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156979