Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi 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