Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27705
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Suraj Govindaraj, J
Thomas Kannamangalath Devasia – Appellant
Versus
Securities And Exchange Board Of India – Respondent
WP No. 13219 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Naveen Kumar M.G.
For the Respondents: Aravind Kamath, Aditya Singh
A Writ Petition cannot be entertained by a High Court where the respondent entities and the core action are situated outside its territorial jurisdiction, and matters involving private employment disputes must be adjudicated through appropriate alternate forums.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus against regulatory bodies to investigate whistleblower disclosures and challenging a termination of employment. The petitioner alleged irregularities within a company and violations of statutory duties. The court examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction and the existence of a private lis. The court addressed the issues of whether a writ petition is maintainable when the respondent entities and the cause of action are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court and whether the grievances raised constitute a private lis. The court reasoned that since the regulatory body and the company operate under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that the termination of service is a private grievance for which alternate remedies exist. The petition is disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forums.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural status and summary of petitioner's requested reliefs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contextual background of the petitioner's claim as a whistleblower. (Para 4) |
| 3. determination of lack of territorial jurisdiction and existence of private remedy. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORAL ORDER
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) DIRECT, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 AND RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS WHISTLE BLOWER DISCLOSURESIN EMAIL DTD 16.09.2022 ANNX-BD, EMAIL DTD 25.09.2022 ANNX-BE AND EMAIL DTD 11.09.2025 ANNX-CB ON MERITS AND CONDUCT A TIME BOUND INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE AFORESAID ANNEXURES AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with, in view of the proposed order to be passed.
3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's whistle blower disclosures in Email dated 16.09.2022-Annexure-BD-, Email dated 25.09.2022-Annexure-BE and Email dated 11.09.2025-Annexure-CB on merits and conduct a time bound independent investigation on the issues raised by the Petitioner in the aforesaid Annexures.
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing for the constitution of an independent enquiry committee (external to respondent No.4) under supervision of SEBI or this Hon'ble Court.
c) Direct the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to investigate the violation of statutory and fiduciary duties committed by Directors, Statutory Auditor, Company Secretary of Respondent No.4, as well as the firm that issued the Certificate in terms of Regulation 24(A) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 based on Petitioner Complaints in email dated 16.09.2022-Annexure-BD, email dated 25.09.2022-Annexure-BE, email dated 03.06.2025-Annexure-BX-, email dated 21.07.2025-Annexure-BY, email dated 26.08.2025-Annexure-CA, email dated 11.09.2025 -Annexure-CB, Transcript of 47th AGM held on 07.08.2025-Annexure-CC, Email dated 13.08.2025-Annexure-CD and Email dated 17.03.2025 -Annexure-CM.
d) Issue a direction to Ministry of Corporate Affairs to incorporate mechanism to ensure the compliance of Section 177 of Companies Act, 2013 and Regulation 22 of the SEBI (LODR) Regulations as requested in email dated 06.01.2026-Annexure-AJ and email dated 12.01.2026-Annexure-AK
e) Declare that the action of Respondent No.4, as reflected in Termination Letter dated 24.02.2025-Annexure-AZ, depriving the Petitioner of his means of livelihood is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and direct the Respondents to take corrective action in accordance with law, regulations, and policy as stated in Whistle Blower Policy dated 11.02.2020-Annexure-A, email dated 24.02.2025-Annexure-CK and email dated 26.02.2025- Annexure-CL.
f) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.”
4. The petitioner claims that he was an employee of respondent No.4 and upon coming to know of certain irregularities and illegalities brought the same to the notice of respondent No.1 to take necessary action and as such, claims to be a whistleblower. Subsequent to the said disclosure, the petitioner's services have been terminated by respondent No.4.
5. The reliefs that have been sought for are against respondent No.1, who is situated in Bombay. Respondent No.4 is also a Company which operates from Bombay. Therefore, this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction.
6. That apart, the issue
