Suit for recovery

DEAR COLLEAGUE, SECTION 20(C) CPC HAS A WIDE SCOPE. EVEN SLIGHTEST OF CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE AT DELHI STILL DELHI COURT HAS GOT JURISDICTION.

IT IS  SETTLED  LAW  THAT JURISDICTION OF A CORT IS TO BE   DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF AVERMENT IN PLAINT.IN YOUR CASE YOU CAN PLEAD (EVEN BY WAY OF AMENDMENT) THAT DEFENDANT WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION/REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF MONEY AT DELHI.PLACE OF  MAKING OF PAYMENT ASSUMES  MATERIAL IMPORTANCE AND THAT PLACE GOVERN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION BEING MATERIAL  CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE AT DELHI. )

GOOD LUCK.FEEL FREE TO CALL.  J.P.PATEL (ADVOCATE )    PUNE (9921158871

Thank you Mr. Patel for replying.

Unfortunately, in this case defendant was suppose to invest the money in a hydro project based in Himachal. He was not suppose to return the money. What happened, instead of investing the money, Defendant kept the money with himself. Defendant was a sub-contractor in the project, taken a project from main contractor and then proposed to plaintiff to invest in the project to get good return. Plaintiff, accordingly invested, through sending money online and then he did not invested and kept withhimself.........i need a judgemnet which says in online money transaction........territorial jurisdiction arises from where the money has been transferred.............

so teh cause of action ws not transfer of money. It was misapproprioateion which happened in HP