https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172476 A plaint disclosing on its face that cargo was shipped to Calcutta and short-landed there was treated as sufficient to sustain admiralty jurisdiction, so the suit could not be rejected or stayed at the threshold by relying on the defence version. Section 10 CPC was held inapplicable because no prior suit involved the same matter, and the forum selection clause did not conclusively oust Calcutta jurisdiction at the preliminary stage where the carrier's principal place of business and other liability-defeating issues remained factual. Permanent stay for suppression or abuse of process was said to require strong material, which was absent, so the suit was allowed to proceed. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172476 A plaint disclosing on its face that cargo was shipped to Calcutta and short-landed there was treated as sufficient to sustain admiralty jurisdiction, so the suit could not be rejected or stayed at the threshold by relying on the defence version. Section 10 CPC was held inapplicable because no prior suit involved the same matter, and the forum selection clause did not conclusively oust Calcutta jurisdiction at the preliminary stage where the carrier's principal place of business and other liability-defeating issues remained factual. Permanent stay for suppression or abuse of process was said to require strong material, which was absent, so the suit was allowed to proceed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172476