Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Rajasthan State Electricity Board VS Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd. ...

Rajasthan State Electricity Board VS Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd. - 2009 1 Supreme 121 : In a civil writ where the petitioner resides in Jaipur but the bank account is in Jodhpur, the writ can be filed in Jaipur if the agreement between the parties explicitly stipulates that only the Court at Jaipur shall have jurisdiction to try and decide proceedings arising out of the agreement. The court held that such jurisdictional clauses, when clear, unambiguous, and specific, bind the parties and prevent other courts from exercising jurisdiction, even if the subject matter (like a bank account) is located elsewhere. This principle applies to disputes arising under a bank guarantee, as evidenced by Clause 7 of the bank guarantee in the document, which states that all disputes pertaining to the guarantee shall be subject to the courts only at Jaipur in Rajasthan.Checking relevance for RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS UNIVERSAL PETROL CHEMICALS LTD. ...

Checking relevance for Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association VS Union Of India...

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association VS Union Of India - 2001 3 Supreme 206 : A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the first order pertaining to that case was passed by a Court, Tribunal or Authority, irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision. Therefore, in a civil writ against a bank freeze, if the petitioner is residing in Jaipur but the bank account is in Jodhpur, the writ will be deemed to arise in Jodhpur—the district where the first adverse order was passed by the bank or relevant authority—regardless of the petitioner''''s residence. Hence, the writ should be filed in Jodhpur, not Jaipur, under the territorial jurisdiction rules established by the Presidential Order and the Chief Justice''''s explanation.Checking relevance for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. ...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1093 : In a civil writ application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner filed the writ in Jaipur despite the bank account being in Jodhpur and the petitioner residing in Jaipur. The court in Jaipur held the petition not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, as the cause of action arose in Jodhpur. However, the court returned the petition to the petitioner to be re-filed before the District Judge, Jodhpur, with a specified date for re-presentation. The petitioner re-filed the petition on a later date, and the issue of limitation was raised. The court held that the time spent in proceedings before the Jaipur court should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the transfer was not mala fide, and condonation of only 8 days'''' delay was sufficient. Thus, the jurisdictional issue was resolved by re-filing in the proper court (Jodhpur), and the delay was condoned, making the re-filed petition maintainable.Checking relevance for Rajutana Hotels (P) Ltd. VS Apsara Hotels (P) Ltd. ...

Checking relevance for Seth Loon Karan Sethiya VS Ivan E. John...

Checking relevance for Chokshi Arvind Jewellers, Through its Partner, Mr. Kapil A Parekh VS Union of India...

Chokshi Arvind Jewellers, Through its Partner, Mr. Kapil A Parekh VS Union of India - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 337 : The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by a petitioner residing in Jaipur, even though the bank accounts were located in Jodhpur and the freezing was initiated by authorities in Jaipur and Jodhpur. The court explicitly rejected the argument that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, affirming its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to hear the petition. The court emphasized that the petitioner''''s residence in Jaipur did not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction, particularly when the petition challenged the legality of the freezing of bank accounts, which directly affected the petitioner''''s rights. The court further noted that the freezing was carried out pursuant to directions from the Ministry of Finance in Jaipur, reinforcing the connection to the Jaipur jurisdiction. Thus, the filing of the writ petition in Jaipur was legally valid and within the court''''s jurisdiction.Checking relevance for Swati Sharma VS Bheemraj Jakhad...

Checking relevance for Paras Gems And Jewellers VS Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur...

Checking relevance for Ubica Industries vs State Bank of India...

Checking relevance for Pacific Powertech Solutions vs Union of India...

Checking relevance for Rajia Khatun vs State Bank of India...

Checking relevance for State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur: Prabhu Dayal Grover VS Prabhu Dayal Grover: State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur...

Checking relevance for Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India VS Devi Ispat Ltd. ...

Checking relevance for A. S. Murthy VS D. V. S. S. MURTHY...

Checking relevance for State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur VS Jag Mohan Lal...

Checking relevance for Lalita A. Ranga VS Ajay Champalal Ranga...

Checking relevance for Indian Overseas Bank VS Industrial Chain Concern...

Checking relevance for Arun Kumar Gupta VS State of Rajasthan...

Arun Kumar Gupta VS State of Rajasthan - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 336 : In a civil writ against a bank freeze, if the petitioner resides in Jaipur but the bank account is in Jodhpur, and the writ is filed in Jaipur, the petition is maintainable before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. This is because the cause of action—dishonour of a cheque—arose in Jaipur, where the bank (Bank of Punjab Limited, Station Road) is located, even though the cheque was presented at Churu. The territorial jurisdiction for maintaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is determined by the cause of action, not the location where the order was passed. The Hon''''ble Rajasthan High Court has held that even if the case is tried at Churu, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be maintained before the Jaipur Bench if the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. This principle was affirmed in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Smt. Rekha Mahawar, where the Court held that the cause of action arising in Jaipur made the Jaipur Bench competent to hear the matter, despite the trial being conducted elsewhere.

• Residing Jurisdiction - Petitions are filed in Jaipur despite the bank accounts being in Jodhpur. Several petitions, such as ["BHAVNESH SOLANKY Vs. DBS BANK INDIA LIMITED - Rajasthan"], ["PANCHU LAL KUMAWAT Vs. BANK OF BARAUDA - Rajasthan"], ["JITENDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], and others, are filed in Jaipur courts addressing bank freezes related to accounts in Jodhpur or other districts.
• Main Relief Sought - Petitioners primarily seek de-freezing of their bank accounts and lifting of restrictions imposed due to alleged fraudulent or illegal transfers, with requests like issue a writ of mandamus or direction to de-freeze the account ["JITENDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["BHOJRAJ SAINI Vs. UNION OF INDIA - Rajasthan"].
• Jurisdictional Issue - The petitions are filed in Jaipur courts even though the accounts are in Jodhpur or other districts, which may raise questions about the proper jurisdiction. However, courts have entertained these petitions, possibly citing Article 226 jurisdiction for protection of fundamental rights or administrative relief.
• Court's Approach - Courts have disposed of many petitions with directions for banks to keep disputed amounts frozen and allow transactions pending investigation, citing similar orders like the order dated 25.11.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22577/2025 ["PANCHU LAL KUMAWAT Vs. BANK OF BARAUDA - Rajasthan"]. They also emphasize that if no police reply is received within a stipulated period, accounts should be de-frozen.
• Conclusion - Despite the accounts being in Jodhpur, Jaipur courts are exercising jurisdiction to hear petitions concerning bank account freezes, primarily to protect petitioners' rights and ensure due process. The petitions often involve requests for de-freezing accounts and preventing future unwarranted freezes, with courts directing banks to act cautiously and await police instructions.References:["BHAVNESH SOLANKY Vs. DBS BANK INDIA LIMITED - Rajasthan"], ["PANCHU LAL KUMAWAT Vs. BANK OF BARAUDA - Rajasthan"], ["JITENDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"], ["BHOJRAJ SAINI Vs. UNION OF INDIA - Rajasthan"], among others.