https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299502 The commentary examines whether the Delhi High Court's Original Side could entertain an amendment application to increase the plaint valuation and keep the suit before the High Court after the 2015 amendment regime and the Chief Justice's transfer order. The majority view was that forum choice and valuation are relevant but not absolute, and that Order VI Rule 17 jurisdiction remained available while the matter stayed on the Original Side; if the amendment were allowed, the suit would not be transferred. The dissent considered that the amended pecuniary limits and transfer order removed such jurisdiction, requiring transfer back under Section 24 CPC. en-us Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Dec 2021 08:51:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299502 The commentary examines whether the Delhi High Court's Original Side could entertain an amendment application to increase the plaint valuation and keep the suit before the High Court after the 2015 amendment regime and the Chief Justice's transfer order. The majority view was that forum choice and valuation are relevant but not absolute, and that Order VI Rule 17 jurisdiction remained available while the matter stayed on the Original Side; if the amendment were allowed, the suit would not be transferred. The dissent considered that the amended pecuniary limits and transfer order removed such jurisdiction, requiring transfer back under Section 24 CPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299502