https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304363 Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was upheld because the defendant's own pleadings admitted that part of the transaction and cause of action arose within Kottayam. That written admission, made early in the suit, was treated as binding and could not be withdrawn through a later explanation. On that basis, the territorial objection failed, and the forum's competence to entertain the suit was confirmed, with the suit directed to proceed on merits expeditiously. en-us Wed, 01 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Sep 2022 07:38:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304363 Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was upheld because the defendant's own pleadings admitted that part of the transaction and cause of action arose within Kottayam. That written admission, made early in the suit, was treated as binding and could not be withdrawn through a later explanation. On that basis, the territorial objection failed, and the forum's competence to entertain the suit was confirmed, with the suit directed to proceed on merits expeditiously. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304363