Territorial jurisdiction in bank disputes depends on the transaction branch, not merely the bank's office within jurisdiction.

Clause 12 territorial jurisdiction for a non-land suit cannot be founded solely on a bank's regional or zonal office within the forum when the disputed transaction arose at another branch outside jurisdiction. The Court treated banking branches as relevantly separate for this inquiry and distinguished the general rule for corporations from the special position of banks. It also held that Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Santosh Kumar Agarwal operate in different factual settings and are not in conflict when read contextually.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for a suit not relating to land, jurisdiction under clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be founded solely on the defendant bank carrying on business within the Court's original jurisdiction even when the banking transaction arose at another branch outside jurisdiction; (ii) whether the Division Bench decisions in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Santosh Kumar Agarwal were irreconcilable.

Issue (i): Whether, for a suit not relating to land, jurisdiction under clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be founded solely on the defendant bank carrying on business within the Court's original jurisdiction even when the banking transaction arose at another branch outside jurisdiction.

Analysis: Clause 12 permits institution of a non-immovable property suit either where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part with leave, or where the defendant dwells or carries on business within jurisdiction. The reference distinguished the general rule applicable to corporations from the special treatment of banks, noting that banking branches have long been regarded as separate entities for many purposes. Reading the Supreme Court authorities together, the Court held that where the dispute concerns a transaction at a particular branch outside jurisdiction, a regional or zonal office within jurisdiction does not, by itself, attract territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Jurisdiction could not be founded merely on the bank's regional or zonal office within jurisdiction when the disputed transaction was connected with another branch outside jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the Division Bench decisions in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Santosh Kumar Agarwal were irreconcilable.

Analysis: Steel Authority dealt with a corporation other than a bank and did not consider the special position of banking branches. Oriental Bank dealt with a claim arising from a transaction at a particular branch of a bank outside jurisdiction and held that the regional office within jurisdiction was irrelevant. Because the factual and legal settings were different, the two rulings operated in distinct fields and did not create a true conflict.

Conclusion: There was no conflict between the two Division Bench judgments; each applied to its own factual setting.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by clarifying that banking branches are to be treated as separate entities for the relevant territorial-jurisdiction inquiry, and that the two cited Division Bench decisions are not inconsistent when read in their proper factual contexts.

Ratio Decidendi: In a banking dispute, territorial jurisdiction based on the defendant carrying on business within the forum does not, by itself, extend to a transaction arising exclusively at another branch outside jurisdiction, and precedents must be read according to the factual context in which they were decided.

---