Future challenges must be instituted before the competent High Court before transfer to Madras.

The petitioner, Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd., sought a declaration that Section 4(L) of the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020, insofar as it omitted Section 56(y) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, was unconstitutional.

It also sought to quash a communication issued by NABARD on 5 May 2026 and consequential proceedings.

When the Court questioned its jurisdiction, the petitioner relied on a Supreme Court order dated 14 October 2022 in Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 659–678 of 2022, which addressed the forum for future petitions challenging the Amending Act or the relevant circular.

1. Whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition in light of the Supreme Court’s order dated 14 October 2022.

2. Whether the petition should instead be instituted before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Principal Seat at Jabalpur.

The Court relied on paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court’s order dated 14 October 2022 in Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 659–678 of 2022.

That paragraph provided that future petitions challenging the validity of the Amending Act and/or the specified circular, once instituted, were to be transferred by the concerned High Court to the Madras High Court.

The Court considered this direction in determining the proper forum for the present petition.

The Court examined the Supreme Court’s order and concluded that its transfer direction applied to future petitions once instituted before the concerned High Court; it did not support instituting this petition directly in the Madras High Court.

The petition therefore needed to be instituted before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.

The Court did not decide the constitutional challenge or the challenge to NABARD’s communication.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.