Dismissed¶11

Punjab National Bank v. Amit Ankit and Anr.

Delhi HC11 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/8698/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab National Bank v. Amit Ankit and Anr., W.P.(C) 8698/2023 (Delhi HC, 11.02.2026; Sambre & Digpaul JJ.) — writ petition dismissed as withdrawn on respondents' territorial jurisdiction objection; petitioner given liberty to pursue permissible/advisable remedy; interim relief continued for four weeks; merits expressly not examined; pending CM application disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to take recourse to such remedy as is permissible and advisable in law; interim relief continued for four weeks from the date of the order; pending application disposed of. ¶11

Punjab National Bank Vs Amit Ankit and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the present writ petition lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court — an objection raised by the respondents, with which the Court stated itself convinced.

¶10

Court's answer

Convinced by the respondents' territorial-jurisdiction objection, the Court deemed it appropriate to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to take recourse to such remedy as is permissible and advisable in law.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The interim relief, which had been in operation for some time, is continued for a period of four weeks from the date of the order notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn.

¶12

Key takeaways

The Court expressly recorded that it had not gone into the merits of the matter, confining the order to the jurisdiction-based withdrawal.ratio¶13
The pending application (CM APPL. 32903/2023) stands disposed of.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 8698/2023 & CM APPL. 32903/2023 (order dated 11.02.2026), bench: Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul, JJ. Punjab National Bank (petitioner) versus Amit Ankit and another (respondents). The respondents raised an objection of territorial jurisdiction, with which the Court stated itself convinced; accordingly, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and dismissed it as withdrawn, granting liberty to take recourse to such remedy as is permissible and advisable in law. Because the interim relief had been in operation, the Court continued it for four weeks from the date of the order. The Court expressly recorded that it had not gone into the merits of the matter. The pending application stood disposed of. No statutory provision or precedent is discussed; the order rests entirely on the jurisdiction objection and consequent withdrawal.

Punjab National Bank v. Amit Ankit and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Amit Ankit and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ex Nk Jay Prakash Gupta Ser No 7773020 K Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anshul Aggarwal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Indupreet Thukral and Ors. Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Tushar Dev Vs Karvy Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Manoj Kumar Singh

Bombay Judo Association Vs Judo Federation of India & Anr.

Sh. Devender Dutt Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sakshi Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shri Radhey Traders through Its Proprietor Mahendra Bansal Vs Avato Ward 76 State Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

M/S Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Superton Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs Shyam Prakash Goyal

Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Swarnalatha J & Anr. Vs Union of of India & Anr.