Question

In case of___________________ it was held that the object of this provision is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining two parallel litigations in respect of the same dispute.

A National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v C Parameshwara, 2005
B Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v PJ Pappu, 1966
C Angile Insulations v Davy Ashmore India Ltd., 1995
D Vidyodaya Trust v Mohan Prasad 2008
Practice Next

Relevant for Exams:

Hey! Ask a query