Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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