UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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