9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 entertain the suit. On appeal, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Agencies, Salem [(1989) 2 SCC 163] to conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 give rise to the respondent to lay the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
