https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175348 Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not exhaust the High Court's power to restrain a party from prosecuting a previously instituted suit in another court. The Calcutta High Court recognised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 to act in personam by injunction where necessary to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. On the facts, the balance of convenience favoured Calcutta because the transactions, documents, and witnesses were centred there, and the Gujranwala suit was found to be maliciously oppressive. An injunction was granted restraining the defendant from proceeding with that suit pending disposal of the Calcutta suit. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 1941 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Nov 2015 17:00:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175348 Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not exhaust the High Court's power to restrain a party from prosecuting a previously instituted suit in another court. The Calcutta High Court recognised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 to act in personam by injunction where necessary to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. On the facts, the balance of convenience favoured Calcutta because the transactions, documents, and witnesses were centred there, and the Gujranwala suit was found to be maliciously oppressive. An injunction was granted restraining the defendant from proceeding with that suit pending disposal of the Calcutta suit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Jan 1941 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175348