Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Against SEBI for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on December 18, 2023, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, dismissed a series of writ petitions filed against the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and others. The court’s decision in case number W.P.(C) 15556/2023 & CM APPL.62322/2023 centered around the critical legal principles of territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens.

The petitioner, Bharat Nidhi Limited, along with other respondents, including Vineet Jain and several companies, had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the revocation of a settlement order by SEBI related to alleged regulatory violations. However, the court found that the essential part of the cause of action leading to this dispute occurred primarily in Mumbai, thereby falling under the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.

Justice Kaurav, in his detailed judgment, emphasized, “The integral, essential and material part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.” This observation formed the crux of the court’s decision to dismiss the petitions on grounds of territorial jurisdiction.

Further elaborating on the principle of forum conveniens, Justice Kaurav noted, “The mere presence of registered offices or receipt of communication in Delhi does not constitute a significant part of the cause of action.” This statement underlines the court’s stance on preventing the abuse of jurisdiction and forum shopping.

The court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of territorial jurisdiction in the context of writ petitions. It highlights the importance of ascertaining the primary location where the cause of action arises, thereby determining the appropriate forum for legal proceedings.

Date of Decision : December 18, 2023

BHARAT NIDHI LIMITED VS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA    

 

Latest Legal News