<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (6) TMI 352 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274970</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction in a civil suit depends on a material part of the cause of action arising within the forum. The court held that the pleadings and documents showed the relevant enquiry, banker&#039;s report, delivery arrangements and remittance were centred outside India, and the alleged wrongful conduct against the second defendant occurred outside Madras. A banker&#039;s reference given in confidence and with an express disclaimer of responsibility did not itself create liability or an actionable cause of action within the jurisdiction. Leave to sue was therefore liable to be revoked and the plaint could not be maintained in that forum against the second defendant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2018 17:39:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534064" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 352 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274970</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction in a civil suit depends on a material part of the cause of action arising within the forum. The court held that the pleadings and documents showed the relevant enquiry, banker&#039;s report, delivery arrangements and remittance were centred outside India, and the alleged wrongful conduct against the second defendant occurred outside Madras. A banker&#039;s reference given in confidence and with an express disclaimer of responsibility did not itself create liability or an actionable cause of action within the jurisdiction. Leave to sue was therefore liable to be revoked and the plaint could not be maintained in that forum against the second defendant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>