The case before the court in the given case was as follows:
- Defendant Frankfinn Aviation Services charges the applicant with compensation
for work. There was Franchise agreement signed between the two. The case is
being re-assigned to another judge in Gurgaon.
- In return, the plaintiff wants a refund of the claim under section 7,
that he does not live in Gurgaon. However, the refund request was denied.
- The franchise agreement was signed between the two parties under clause
16 B. However, the appointment of directors is an important part of the
- The appellant then filed a review before the Delhi High Court to hear
the De novo claim, to proceed with the case from the beginning and not where
it had been left earlier. However, the Delhi High Court held the case.
- The applicant then applied for special leave before the bench of 3
judges in the High Court receiving a reference to the decision between the
section bench decisions in the case of Joginder Tuli against SL Bhatia and oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited. In contrast to modern construction and Co.
If and when the
plaint is returned under order 7, rule 10 and 10A of the CPC, either the case
will continue as de novo or will continue from the pending period in the court
Problems regarding CPC
Under order 7, rule 10 of the CPC, 1908. If a plaint is returned due to
location-related problems, the suit will not resume where it was left, it will
continue as de novo data. In the event of a lack of jurisdiction, the case will
be filed as a new claim in the appropriate court and the hearing will begin as a
new one. Later, rules 10 A and 10 were added to order 7.
Section 24 (5) Transfer of the suit
The CPC Act 1976 also adds section 5 to section 24 under section 24 (5), a case
may be referred to a court that has no jurisdiction. The High Court and the
Regional Court have jurisdiction to give a court case where there is no
jurisdiction in a court of competent jurisdiction.
It is desirable that in a dispute between parties where two or more courts may
have jurisdiction, it is always open to agreement to grant special authorization
in one of the 2 courts. In the present case clause 16b of the agreement is
subject to special authorization in a Delhi court.
It was held that the appeal under section 24 of the CPC was completely different
from the return of the claim. In a referral, both the appellant and the
appellate court have jurisdiction to hear the case. The appellate court has an
order to hear or attempt to hear the case and or to continue thereafter the
continuation of the search is contrary to the procedure to be mentioned under
order 7 Rule 10.
The second application under order 7 rule 10 was to be decided by the
respondent, the parties' appeal was finalized. Evidence was led and the case was
settled for a final debate.
By exercising its power of choice u/s 136 of the constitution and by
administering full and visible justice among the article 142 of the