[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Verma vs Google on 12 March, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20387
1 WP-6013-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6013 of 2026
AMIT VERMA
Versus
GOOGLE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Verma - petitioner in person.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. To issue a writ in the nature of the petitioner challenging his deposit
money to olymp trade app application and wants my all money refund by
olymp trade app. So please order to respondent Google CEO and Google
team for refund petitioner money.
B. To issue an appropriate writ in nature of petition and kindly order to
Google for delete this olymp trade app application from Google play store
because olymp trade app no registration for share trading in India. Request
for ban olymp trade app India and ban its download, in the interest of
justice.
C. To grant any other relief is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances
of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded."
It is the case of the petitioner that he downloaded an olymp trade app
application for shares trading purpose floated by the Google Play app and
registered his E-mail Address [email protected]. in olymp trade app by
creating online share trading account vide my share trading ID 50837352 and
deposited Rs. 19,000/- dated 08.02.2026 USD 10 and USD 30 and USD 100
Total 140 USD on dated 08.02.2026 by his phone-pay account mobile
no.8349763827. He started shares trading in olymp trade app on 23.10.2019
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20387
2 WP-6013-2026
with 200 USD and was continuing depositing money in this olymp from
23.10.2019 to 08.02.2026 and approximately Rs. 2,73,030/- has been
invested. However, no return has been received by him. It is submitted that
since olymp trade app is floated in Google play store for downloading, the
Google is fully responsible in the matter. Hence, this petition has been
seeking refund of his money.
Admittedly, there is alternative efficacious remedy available to the
petitioner in terms of Section 15K of Securities and Exchange Board of India
as well as in terms of Section 23L of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act,
1956. The petitioner can approach the authorities under the said provisions
for redressal of his grievances. The petitioner with wide open eyes has
downloaded olymp trade app and himself has invested the amount through
the App. It is his case that App has been floated on the platform of the
Google and therefore, the Google is made a party to the proceedings.
However, no such relief against the respondents can be claimed as the
petitioner himself has downloaded the App and invested the money for
shares trading. If the petitioner is not got any benefit out of the trading
carried out by him through olymp trade app, the Google cannot be held
responsible for the same. Even otherwise, a similar writ petition being
W.P.No.8101 of 2026 seeking relief of refund of amount invested by the
petitioner, has already been dismissed for want of alternative efficacious
remedy and herein the petitioner is also claiming refund of the amount
invested through olymp trade app.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India Real Estate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20387
3 WP-6013-2026
Corporation Limited and another vs. Union of India and others reported in
(2013) 1 SCC 175 has dealt with the similar issue. The same was again
reconsidered by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajendra Lal Virmani
vs. Union of India and others (W.P.(C) 4408 of 2024) dated 04.02.2026 as
well as in the case of K.C. Aggarwal vs. Securities and Exchange Board of
India and another (W.P. (C) 2167 of 2026) dated 16.02.2026.
As an alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under
the Act, this Court refrains from entertaining the present petition. The writ
petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy available to
him under the law.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
