RAHUL KUMAR TIWARI PROP. OF MARUTI TRADING THROUGH P.O.A.RAJESHKUMAR KANTBHAI PATEL vs BIRINCHI GHOSH PROP.OF M/S TRADER OF JATADHARI DRY AND LIQUID MILK SUPPLIER Advocate - J B CHAVDA — 2/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96,41. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 18th March 2026.
COMM APL - COMMERCIAL APPEAL
CNR: GJMH010021702025
Filing Number
2/2025
Filing Date
26-Jun-2025
Registration No
2/2025
Registration Date
26-Jun-2025
Court
DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 12-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAHUL KUMAR TIWARI PROP. OF MARUTI TRADING THROUGH P.O.A.RAJESHKUMAR KANTBHAI PATEL
Adv. N K VAIDANKAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.BIRINCHI GHOSH PROP.OF M/S TRADER OF JATADHARI DRY AND LIQUID MILK SUPPLIER Advocate - J B CHAVDA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The Commercial Appellate Court at Mahesana dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's rejection of the plaint on jurisdictional grounds. The court found that while invoices contained a "Mahesana jurisdiction" clause, the plaintiff failed to produce a written contract signed by both parties establishing this agreement, and invoices alone cannot establish mutual consent to jurisdiction. Since the goods were supplied from multiple states to a defendant in West Bengal, and without clear bilateral agreement, the court held that Mahesana lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
21-Feb-2026
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
10-Feb-2026
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
22-Jan-2026
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
09-Jan-2026
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
30-Dec-2025
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
05-Dec-2025
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
25-Nov-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
18-Nov-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
20-Sep-2025
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
30-Aug-2025
Hearing P.P.
Principal District Judge
-
30-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Jun-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2/2025
Summary The Commercial Appellate Court at Mahesana dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's rejection of the plaint on jurisdictional grounds. The court found that while invoices contained a "Mahesana jurisdiction" clause, the plaintiff failed to produce a written contract signed by both parties establishing this agreement, and invoices alone cannot establish mutual consent to jurisdiction. Since the goods were supplied from multiple states to a defendant in West Bengal, and without clear bilateral agreement, the court held that Mahesana lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts