property usage essential to determine commercial dispute
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The appellants have admitted in the plaint that they have been using the suit premises for the purposes of their trade and commerce for the last more than 10 years. When the parties entered into the said agreement to sell in respect of the suit premises, appellants were in possession of the shops as tenants and were using the same even then for their trade and commerce.”

State Gratuity authorities lack jurisdiction for multi-state establishments-State establishments
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The fundamental error permeating both the impugned orders is the assumption that merely because the claimant worked or claimed to have worked in Delhi, the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government and the Appellate Authority derived jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.”

Surrogacy Act Petitions
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Petitions filed under the Surrogacy Act must not be treated as routine applications, as they concern one of the deepest aspirations of human life, the desire of childless couples to have a child.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

‘The essential, material, and integral cause of action had arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.’

Gujarat High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court also said that the CAT, Ahmedabad, did not have jurisdiction under rule 6(1) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, as the show cause notice was issued from New Delhi.