Prior Finalised Decisions On Territorial Jurisdiction Remain Binding Despite Subsequent Different Interpretation By Superior Court On Identical Clauses: Bombay High Court
The Court noted that principle of res judicata overrides subsequent legal interpretation in territorial jurisdiction disputes.
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has reiterated that the principle of res judicata effectively prevents a party from re-litigating the issue of territorial jurisdiction within the same cause of action, even when a subsequent superior court decision interprets similar contractual clauses differently. In a significant judgment, the Court clarified that while an inherent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may render an order a nullity, errors pertaining to procedural aspects such as territorial jurisdiction are binding unless set aside through appropriate appellate or revisional channels.
The judgment notes that the legislative intent behind Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, gives primacy to the finality of litigation over evolving legal interpretations. By dismissing the revision application, the Court noted that a change in the interpretation of law by a superior court in an unrelated case does not provide a valid ground for a trial court to revisit its own finalised orders in the same proceeding.
Justice Rohit W. Joshi observed, “…It must be reiterated that territorial jurisdiction like res judicata is only a procedural aspect of jurisdiction of a Court. It will also be appropriate to refer to Section 21(1) of the CPC which provides that a decree cannot be set aside by Appellate or Revisional Court on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, unless such objection is raised at the earliest and there has been a consequent failure of justice on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction. As against this, res judicata is consistently held to be an important principle of a public policy which is essential to preserve the rule of law. The principle of res judicata is a principle of equity, justice and good conscience”.
Advocate V. V. Bhangde appeared for the applicant and Advocate Amit Khare appeared for the respondent.
The matter originated from a suit filed in the year 2017 by Archana Dongre against HDFC Bank Limited and its officials, seeking a declaration and damages following the termination of her services. Although her appointment letter contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause favoring Mumbai courts, the plaintiff instituted the suit in Nagpur.
It was contended that the interview, appointment, entire work performance, and the eventual termination all occurred within the jurisdiction of Nagpur.
Pertinently, multiple attempts by HDFC Bank were made to challenge the Nagpur court’s authority. An initial application for the return of the plaint was rejected on April 05, 2018, a decision later upheld by the High Court in a Civil Revision Application and a subsequent review petition.
Following these failures, the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank 2025 SCC Online SC 752 interpreted an identical clause to mean that Mumbai courts alone held jurisdiction. On this precedent, the bank filed a fresh application at the Trial Court, which was rejected on the grounds of res judicata, leading to the present revision.
The Court observed that the ratio in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and ors. v. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy 1970 (1) SCC 613 regarding exceptions to res judicata applies only to separate proceedings on different causes of action, not to re-opening issues within the same suit.
“Since the earlier order passed by the learned Trial Court with respect to territorial jurisdiction is confirmed by this Court and the same is not challenged further, in the considered opinion of this Court the said order will operate as res judicata between the parties and as such it was not open for the applicants/defendants to file fresh application seeking return of plaint in view of subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the Civil Revision Application, maintaining that the Trial Court's rejection of the bank's fresh application was correct. No order as to costs was made.
Cause Title: HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. v. Archana [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:5312]
Appearances:
Applicant: V. V. Bhangde, Advocate.
Respondent: Amit Khare, Advocate.