1996 (3) TMI 471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Court made on February 19, 1980 in FAO (OS) No.56/79. The respondents had filed a suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court for perpetual injunction against the appellant from enforcing bank guarantee dated July 16, 1977. The learned single Judge held that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court and, therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n furtherance of the execution of the contract at Bombay, the respondents had executed the bank guarantee at Delhi and had transmitted it to Bombay for performance of the contract. The question, therefore, is whether any part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. The learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon a judgment of this Court in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. A.P. Agencie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....possibly accrue or would arise. In view of the admitted position that contract was executed in Bombay, i.e., within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay, performance of the contract was also to be done within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court; merely because bank guarantee has executed at Delhi and transmitted for performance in Bombay, it does not constitute a cause of action to g....