https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289333 Territorial jurisdiction existed at Ratangarh because part of the cause of action arose there in a suit for recovery of money from commercial dealings. The plaintiff was required to prove that payment on the hundis was made at Ratangarh, and that payment formed part of the bundle of facts giving rise to the claim. Payment to the bank at Ratangarh could not be treated as payment at Kota merely because the bank acted under the defendant's instructions. Once the transactions ended, the claim created a debtor-creditor relationship, and in the absence of an agreed place of payment, the debtor had to seek the creditor. en-us Mon, 26 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2020 12:06:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289333 Territorial jurisdiction existed at Ratangarh because part of the cause of action arose there in a suit for recovery of money from commercial dealings. The plaintiff was required to prove that payment on the hundis was made at Ratangarh, and that payment formed part of the bundle of facts giving rise to the claim. Payment to the bank at Ratangarh could not be treated as payment at Kota merely because the bank acted under the defendant's instructions. Once the transactions ended, the claim created a debtor-creditor relationship, and in the absence of an agreed place of payment, the debtor had to seek the creditor. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289333