Court Orders Are Legally Binding Across India
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2026-04-20 14:20:35
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
The tendency to treat court orders as geographically confined inconveniences that are binding in one state but negotiable in another has long been one of the quieter distortions of India's legal system. A recent case before the Karnataka High Court exposes just how dangerous that assumption can be.
The matter arose from a loan default of nearly Rs 896.4 crore involving Electrex (India) Ltd, where proceedings had been initiated by Kotak Mahindra Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Bombay High Court had already stepped in, attaching the company's assets and, in insolvency proceedings, adjudicating its managing director, Anant V Hegde, as insolvent. That should have been the end of the matter, at least as far as dealing with those assets was concerned. It wasn't.
Despite subsisting orders, Hegde proceeded to alienate immovable properties in Bengaluru, including factory premises in Yeshwanthpur, in favour of third parties. The attempt was not subtle, it was a direct act of defiance. The Bombay High Court responded by declaring the transactions null and void and directing local sub-registrars to disregard such sale deeds.
The issue, however, did not end with cancellation. It raised a more fundamental question: can a litigant escape the effect of a court order simply by crossing state lines?
The Karnataka High Court answered that question with necessary clarity. Orders of constitutional courts - be it the Supreme Court or High Courts - are binding on authorities and parties alike, irrespective of territorial jurisdiction. Compliance is not a matter of convenience; it is a legal obligation.
Territorial jurisdiction determines where a court may hear a matter. It does not provide a loophole for disobedience. If it did, the consequences would be immediate and severe. Assets would be routinely shifted across states to evade attachment, enforcement would become fragmented, and court orders would be reduced to region-specific advisories.That is not how a constitutional system is meant to function.
India's judicial architecture is unified, not federal in the sense that each state operates as an isolated legal island. High Courts may be territorially bounded in where they exercise jurisdiction, but their authority over parties before them cannot be so easily partitioned.
The facts of this case underline a growing reality. In an economy where assets are mobile and ownership structures layered, evasion is no longer crude - it is strategic. Properties are transferred, entities restructured, and transactions executed across jurisdictions in the hope that enforcement will lag behind ingenuity. The only effective counter to this is a clear and uncompromising rule: a court order follows the person, not the pin code.
The Karnataka High Court's observation reinforces that principle. But clarity in law must be matched by consistency in enforcement. Courts across the country must treat such conduct for what it is - not a technical breach, but a deliberate attempt to undermine judicial authority.
Because if litigants begin to believe that orders can be outrun by geography, the damage will not be confined to individual cases. It will strike at the credibility of the system itself. And that is a risk the law cannot afford.
