Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

A suit for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, where the wrong was done within the local jurisdiction of one court and the defendant resides within the local limits of another court-

A suit for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, where the wrong was done within the local jurisdiction of one court and the defendant resides within the local limits of another court- Correct Answer Either A or B at the opinion of the plaintiff

Related Questions

Where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided
1. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court
2. By the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the accused resides, carries on business or is engaged in a gainful employment
3. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court in consultation with the State Government concerned
4. If the courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by that court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Which of the above are correct?
To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
In order for that a decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the court which may decide that suit must have been?
1. A civil court of competent jurisdiction
2. A court of exclusive jurisdiction
3. A court of concurrent jurisdiction 'competent to try the subsequent suit'
4. A court of limited jurisdiction competent to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit
A suit filed for compensation for a wrong done to a person or movable property shall be instituted in the Court within whose jurisdiction
The propositions are
1. The general property in goods can be with one person while the special property in the same goods be with the another person.
2. The transfer of general property in goods to one person can be done subject to a special property in the same goods in another person.
3. The special property in goods can be only with the person having general property in goods.
In respect of the aftersaid proposition which of the following is true
Consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States.
2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other State on the other.
3. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any corporation of Individual one side and one or more States on the other.
4. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between two or more States.
Which of these statements are correct?
A civil suit was repeatedly fixed by the trial court for examination of the defendant's witnesses but the said opportunity was not availed by the defendant, therefore on 18th November 2016 when neither the defendant nor his counsel had appeared, the trial court had proceeded ex parte and heard the final arguments and reserved the case for judgement. On 28th November 2016 the defendant had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is
In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is
In a suit for recovery of Rs. 25 lakh, the Defendant files its written statement and pleads that it does not owe any money to the Plaintiff but in fact, it is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 40 lakh from the Plaintiff. The Defendant, however, does not file a counter claim. Can the Defendant file the counter claim at a subsequent stage in the suit or file a fresh suit seeking recovery of Rs, 40 lakhs?
In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?