<?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>1974 (7) TMI 126 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306632</link>
    <description>Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs suits for compensation for wrong done to person or movable property where the wrong occurs within one court&#039;s jurisdiction and the defendant resides or carries on business within another, allowing forum choice. The phrase &quot;wrong done&quot; is not limited to the initial wrongful act; in a damages claim, the resulting loss and injury are part of the cause of action because compensation cannot be claimed without proof of damage. Even apart from Section 19, resultant damage may also constitute part of the cause of action under Section 20(c). The Akola Court&#039;s jurisdiction was therefore correctly upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2023 15:34:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (7) TMI 126 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306632</link>
      <description>Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs suits for compensation for wrong done to person or movable property where the wrong occurs within one court&#039;s jurisdiction and the defendant resides or carries on business within another, allowing forum choice. The phrase &quot;wrong done&quot; is not limited to the initial wrongful act; in a damages claim, the resulting loss and injury are part of the cause of action because compensation cannot be claimed without proof of damage. Even apart from Section 19, resultant damage may also constitute part of the cause of action under Section 20(c). The Akola Court&#039;s jurisdiction was therefore correctly upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>