https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193134 The Rajasthan HC explained that the common-law rule that a debtor must seek the creditor is not an independent basis for jurisdiction in India; it applies only where no express or implied agreement fixes the place of payment or performance. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure governs jurisdiction where the cause of action arises, and the place of performance may form part of that cause of action. Section 49 of the Contract Act only operates when no place is fixed. On the facts, repayment was impliedly fixed at Meerut, so the asserted basis for Bharatpur jurisdiction failed and the plaint return was left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 04 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:07:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193134 The Rajasthan HC explained that the common-law rule that a debtor must seek the creditor is not an independent basis for jurisdiction in India; it applies only where no express or implied agreement fixes the place of payment or performance. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure governs jurisdiction where the cause of action arises, and the place of performance may form part of that cause of action. Section 49 of the Contract Act only operates when no place is fixed. On the facts, repayment was impliedly fixed at Meerut, so the asserted basis for Bharatpur jurisdiction failed and the plaint return was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193134