L N GUPTA Vs. TARA MANI
LAWS(DLH)-1983-5-11
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 09,1983

L.N.GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
TARA MANI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

G E CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA VS. G NEUROMED DIAGNAOSTIC CENTRE PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-163] [REFERRED TO]
MILKFOOD LIMITED VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
NUTAN DAMODAR PRABHU VS. RAVINDRA VASSANT KENKRE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
HELCINO ALEIXO FERNANDES VS. MILIND MADHUKAR BHENDE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-4-195] [REFERRED TO]
AMERICAN EXPRESS BANKS LTD VS. RAJESH GUPTA [LAWS(NCD)-1999-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
PUNEET KUMAR AGARWAL VS. M/S. IMAGINATIONS AGRI EXPORTS & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-394] [REFERRED TO]
SHRADHA WASSAN VS. ANIL GOEL [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL VS. STAR PVG EXPORTS [LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-260] [REFERRED]
JAIPAL CHAND JAIN VS. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-276] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNA OSWAL VS. GEN Y COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2020-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
TRANSASIA PRIVATE CAPITAL LIMITED VS. PARMANAND AGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-22] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.L.Jain, J. - (1.)The respondent plaintiff Tara Mani, a widow living in D-II/160, Kaka Nagar, New Delhi, filed a suit in Delhi against the petitioners defendants on the basis of a pronote which was made and delivered on 9-6-1978 in Bangalore in her favour by the petitioners defendants payable on demand 'at Bangalore or any part of India'. In New Delhi she was living with her relative and attorney B.S. Gupta. On 12-3-1981 B.S. Gupta wrote from New Delhi to the petitioners to remit the amount due to her within 30 days. On 11-5-1981 her advocate upon instructions from Smt. Tara Mani by a notice called upon the petitioners to pay the amount due within seven days. Since no payment was forthcoming, the present suit was filed on 28-5-1981.
(2.)Upon an objection, a preliminary issue was framed whether the Delhi court had any jurisdiction. The learned Additional District Judge was of the view that the defendants agreed to make payment on demand at any part of India. So, if payment could be demanded in Delhi in terms of the contract, suit could also lie at Delhi. The choice was left with the plaintiff on the basis of the contract between the parties and the defendants cannot now contend that the suit could be instituted only in Bangalore. By his order of 26-11-1982, the learned Judge decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, this petition.
(3.)Upon hearing the counsel, I am of the view that the petition ought to be dismissed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.