Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6510
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRANAY VERMA, J
KRISHIDHAN SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (ERSTWHILE UNITED BANK OF INDIA) – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 1770 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Manish Nair
For the Respondents: Shri Shrey Raj Saxena
Territorial jurisdiction in legal proceedings is determined by the location of the cause of action, not merely the location of the registered office of the petitioners.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Jurisdiction - The petitioner challenged the declaration of their accounts as fraud by the bank claiming territorial jurisdiction based on registered office's location. The court held that jurisdiction must arise from the cause of action location, which was established in Pune, Maharashtra. (Paras 2, 9, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court outlined that mere service of notices at the registered office does not establish territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is linked to the cause of action's relevance with the case's disputes. (Paras 8, 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petition contested the bank's fraud declaration, claiming jurisdiction in Indore due to registered office location, yet all relevant actions occurred in Pune.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, dismissing the petition but allowing the petitioners to seek remedy in the correct jurisdiction.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the court had jurisdiction based on the location of the registered office versus the location of the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the cause of action, not the registered office or where notices are served.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction based on cause of action location. (Para 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA st ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 1770 of 2023 KRISHIDHAN SEES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (ERSTWHILE UNITED BANK OF INDIA)
AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Manish Nair - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena - Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER (Reserved on 25.08.2025) (Delivered on 01.09.2025)
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the action of respondent No.1 whereby it has declared the accounts of petitioner No.1 Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited as fraud.
2. An application challenging maintainability of the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 on the ground that alleged cause of action of declaration of account of the petitioners as fraud by respondent No.1 arose in Pune, Maharashtra which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay. The loan account was sanctioned by the bank at Pune, Maharashtra, the properties which were kept as security while granting the loan are situated in the State of Maharashtra and the account of the petitioners was Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI declared as fraud by the bank by its branch at Pune, Maharashtra. The entire cause of action has hence arisen at Pune and no cause of action whatsoever has arisen at Indore. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondent No.1 upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and other and versus M/s Swaika Properties and another (1985) 3 SCC 217, Lieutenant Colonel Khajoor Singh versus Union of India and another AIR 1961 SC 532 and National Textile Corporation Limited and others versus Haribox Swalram and others (2204) 9 SCC 786.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this Court very much has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this petition. The petitioners have their registered office at Indore and conduct their business from Indore which comes under the domain of the registrar of companies at Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. The OTS proposal submitted by petitioners clearly reflects the address of the registered office of their company being at Indore. The communications between petitioners and respondent No.1 took place from petitioner’s registered office at Indore. The impugned notices and actions were served upon the petitioners at Indore and were replied by the petitioners from Indore. As per the provisions of Companies Act , 2013 also this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of the Apex Court in Stridewell Leather (P) Ltd. Ors. Vs. Bhankerepur Simbhaoli Beverage (P) Ltd & Ors. 1994 (1) SCC 34, Om Prakash Srivastave vs. Union Of India & Ors. 2006 (6) SCC 207 and Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Cerntal Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. The issue as to place of filing of a writ petition in context of the cause of action has been the subject matter of consideration by the Apex Court from time to time. It has been held that each and every fact as have been pleaded in the writ petition do not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or disputes involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. Service of notice at the head office of the company would not confer territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction
