Facts of the case: Rakesh Kumar Verma's Case: His appointment was as an Executive in HDFC Bank located in Patna —Rakesh Kumar Verma. His letter of appointment contained a stipulation that any disputes would be subject to “Bombay Courts have exclusive jurisdiction”. He filed a suit in Patna after his termination. HDFC bank appealed the case to the Patna High Court,which later ruled in favour of HDFC Bank stating that Bombay Courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Deepti Bhatia's Case: Deepti Bhatia, who worked at HDFC Bank’s branch in Delhi, had such an exclusive jurisdiction clause in her employment contract as well. She filed a suit in Delhi after her termination. The case was allowed to proceed in Delhi by the Delhi High Court, in her favor. Court’s Decision: Rakesh Kumar Verma's Appeal: The Court rejected his appeal, upholding the Patna High Court’s decision that Mumbai courts had exclusive jurisdiction. However, the Court modified the procedural relief by providing that the plaint should be returned and presentation in Mumbai instead of rejecting the plaint. Appeal Of HDFC Bank Versus Deepti Bhatia: Daily Gazette It allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and ordered return of the plaint for presentation in Mumbai.