Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

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    

 

Similar News