https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274963 The Court held that the cause of action, including fraud committed before the High Court, fell within its jurisdiction, granting leave to sue. Despite some defendants residing in the jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the suit should be brought in Malabar where the majority of the cause of action arose. Emphasizing the Malabar-centric nature of the suit, the Court dismissed the appeal, ordering the plaintiff to pay court fees. The decision was based on jurisdictional requirements, cause of action location, and balance of convenience, resulting in a ruling in favor of the defendants. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 1922 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Sep 2018 15:43:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274963 The Court held that the cause of action, including fraud committed before the High Court, fell within its jurisdiction, granting leave to sue. Despite some defendants residing in the jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the suit should be brought in Malabar where the majority of the cause of action arose. Emphasizing the Malabar-centric nature of the suit, the Court dismissed the appeal, ordering the plaintiff to pay court fees. The decision was based on jurisdictional requirements, cause of action location, and balance of convenience, resulting in a ruling in favor of the defendants. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Oct 1922 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274963