Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

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?

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? Correct Answer Yes, the principle of res judicata will apply

Related Questions

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
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' a resident of Mumbai has a website 'www.caravan.co.in' launched in 2015. 'A' has a business of apparels in Mumbai having a trade mark 'CARAVAN'. The website is accessible from Delhi. 'B' a resident of Hyderabad starts a website 'www.caravaan.co.in' in 2017 having the same business. The website of 'B' consists of a catalogue, a toll free number, and an email address. 'A' wants to file a suit for passing off of trade mark in Delhi.
1. 'A' can file a suit in Delhi on the basis of accessibility of website of 'B'.
2. 'A' cannot file a suit merely on the accessibility of website.
3. 'A' cannot file a suit in Delhi as the website of 'B' is not interactive.
4. 'A' can file a suit if 'B' specifically targets the forum state resulting in harm to 'A' in forum State.
Choose the correct option from below:
Reading the amended Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the insertions of O. 10, which of the following conditions should be satisfied before matter could be referred to an Alternate Dispute Redressal?
1. Existence of elements of settlement in the opinion of the Court
2. The parties must share the opinion of the court
3. Formulation of the terms of settlement by the court
4. The court should invite the observation of the parties on the terms of settlement
5. Observations of the parties must be received by the court
6. If need be, reformulate the terms of settlement and refer the same for Alternate Dispute Redressal contemplated un section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Train A travelling at 60 km/hr leaves Mumbai for Delhi at 6 pm. Train B travelling at 90 km/hr also leaves Mumbai for Delhi at 9 pm. Train C leaves Delhi for Mumbai at 9 pm. If all the three trains meet at the same time between Mumbai and Delhi, then what is the speed of train C if the distance between Delhi and Mumbai is 1260 km ?
A', an Indian citizen, enters into a contract with 'B', a US citizen based in the USA. Certain disputes arise under the contract, and 'B' files a suit in the matter in the civil court of New York. 'A' files a counter claim in the said suit. Subsequently, 'A' files a suit in the same matter in the jurisdictional Civil Court in New Delhi. Is the latter court barred from trying the suit?
A', a resident of Delhi, files a suit at Delhi for infringement of Trade Mark by 'B', a resident of Mumbai, for using the Mark at Mumbai.
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
In the question below, are given a statement followed by three courses of actions numbered I, II and III. On the basis of the information given, you have to assume everything in the statement to be true, and then decide which of the following suggested courses of actions logically follow(s) for pursuing. Statement: Soon VAT 69 whiskey and Smirnoff Vodka will not be found on the shelves of Delhi Liquor stores owing to the duplication of barcode by manufacturer United Limited. The Delhi government financial commissioner blacklisted the manufacturer. Financial commissioner Anindo Majumdar had said in an order dated September 14, that USL had violated provisions of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 by using unauthorized and loose barcodes, which could be easily misused. Courses of action: I. The ban will force United Spirits Limited not to sell its liquor in the national capital for two years. II. the appellant violated provisions of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, Delhi Excise Rules, 2010, the terms and conditions of the license issued to it and the standard operating procedure framed by the Delhi Excise Department and that consequently the department has rightly imposed the penalty of blacklisting under Rule 70 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 upon United Spirits LTD (USL), Aurangabad. III. United Limited has been blacklisted by the Delhi government financial commissioner.
Six persons A, B, C, D, E and F are going to any one place among six different places Delhi, Mumbai, Punjab, Odisha, Goa and UP (not necessarily in the same order). No two persons are going to the same place. B is not going to Delhi. E is going to Odisha. F is not going to Delhi and Goa. D is going to Mumbai. A and C are not going to UP. A is not going to Delhi. Who is going to Delhi?