Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction in Bank Fraud Cases

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling concerning the application of territorial jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court today dismissed two writ petitions filed against the Bank of India and Punjab National Bank. The petitions, filed by Pune Buildtech Pvt Ltd and Majestic Infracon Pvt. Ltd., challenged the banks’ decision to declare their accounts as ‘fraud’ under the RBI Master Circular on the Classification and Reporting of Fraud dated 01.07.2016.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, presiding over the matter, held that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions. The Court emphasized the importance of the ‘cause of action’ in determining jurisdiction, stating, “The Court examines whether essential facts constituting the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.”

This observation is crucial as it underscores the principle that not every fact in a dispute confers jurisdiction upon a court. The judgment further elaborated that “the convenience of the parties cannot be the sole criterion for the determination of jurisdiction considering the broader perspective of dynamism of technology and increased access to justice.”

The key contention revolved around the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court in cases where the primary actions under scrutiny – including loan agreements and the declaration of accounts as fraud – occurred outside its territorial limits, particularly in Mumbai.

The petitions were dismissed, with the Court advising the parties to approach the appropriate jurisdictional High Court. The Court clarified that its decision was strictly on jurisdictional grounds, without delving into the merits of the cases.

 Date of Decision: 19.12.2023

 PUNE BUILDTECH PVT LTD VS BANK OF INDIA

 

Latest Legal News