https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459066 An admitted claim for salary arrears in a summary suit did not require leave to defend, because the salary rate and due period were undisputed and a bare counterclaim did not amount to a triable defence. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Mumbai did not oust Delhi's jurisdiction, as a jurisdiction-selection clause operates only where the chosen court otherwise has independent jurisdiction; the pleaded Delhi-based appointment, posting, and payment supported Delhi jurisdiction. The arbitration clause also did not bar the suit, since no Section 8 application was filed and there was no real dispute over the arrears. The salary claim was decreed with interest and costs. en-us Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2024 19:27:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459066 An admitted claim for salary arrears in a summary suit did not require leave to defend, because the salary rate and due period were undisputed and a bare counterclaim did not amount to a triable defence. The exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Mumbai did not oust Delhi's jurisdiction, as a jurisdiction-selection clause operates only where the chosen court otherwise has independent jurisdiction; the pleaded Delhi-based appointment, posting, and payment supported Delhi jurisdiction. The arbitration clause also did not bar the suit, since no Section 8 application was filed and there was no real dispute over the arrears. The salary claim was decreed with interest and costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459066