Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Issue arose whether civil suits could have been instituted in courts in Patna and Delhi by employees in view of the specific…
Disposed of- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 7 Apr 2025
- Citation
- [2025] 5 S.C.R. 78
- Case no.
- CIVIL APPEAL No. 2282/2025
- Bench
- Dipankar Datta, Manmohan
Issue for consideration
Issue arose whether civil suits could have been instituted in courts in Patna and Delhi by employees in view of the specific clauses in the appointment letter that courts in Mumbai would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes by and between the contracting parties. s.28 – Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings – Exclusive jurisdiction of courts – Appointment of two employees by the respondent Bank, one in Patna and other in Delhi and exclusive jurisdiction clause in the appointment letter that the courts in Mumbai will have
Source: Indian Supreme Court Judgments dataset, AWS Open Data, CC BY 4.0. A brief, not legal advice — read the judgment itself before relying on it.
More from the Supreme Court of India
- [2026] 10 S.C.R. 295Service law and pensionary benefits – Claim ofSupreme Court AllowedChhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya and Others v. The State of Gujarat and Others
- [2026] 10 S.C.R. 277Tax/Taxation – M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 – Entry Tax Act 1976Supreme Court DismissedAddl. Commr. Commercial Tax & Ors. v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Anr.
- [2026] 10 S.C.R. 289Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings arising assaultSupreme Court AllowedSachin Gupta v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.
- [2026] 10 S.C.R. 259Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction solely on the basis of, when not justifiedSupreme Court AllowedSantosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim