What to do with the litigation jurisdiction objection between the enterprise and the bank

It depends on whether you appeal or not, and it has nothing to do with the bank. Jurisdictional objection refers to the opinion or proposition of dissatisfaction with jurisdiction submitted by a party to the court to which the suit is filed or the court to which the case is transferred when the party believes that the court to which the suit is filed or the court to which the case is transferred has no jurisdiction over the case.

Generally speaking, after receiving the jurisdictional objection raised by the parties, the court should carefully conduct a written review and, if necessary, convene a hearing between the parties. The objections raised by the parties to the jurisdiction of the parties shall be dealt with differently depending on the circumstances: the parties raise objections to territorial jurisdiction.

If upon review, the objection is sustained, the court receiving the lawsuit shall rule to transfer the case to a court with jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of Article 38 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China; If the objection is not sustained, a ruling is to reject it. If the parties are not satisfied with the ruling, they may appeal to the court at the level above within 5 days from the date on which the ruling is served.

Legal basis] According to the provisions of Articles 154 and 164 of the Civil Procedure Law, if a party is dissatisfied with the ruling on the objection to jurisdiction, he has the right to appeal within 10 days from the date of service of the ruling. As mentioned above, there are two types of rulings by the court on jurisdictional objections, one is the ruling to reject the objection, and the other is the ruling to transfer the objection to the court with jurisdiction when the objection is established. The subject of the former is the applicant, and the latter is the opposite party of the applicant.

Extended Materials] Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China on Trial Supervision Procedures

Article 37: Where upon retrial the people's court finds that the facts ascertained in the original judgment or ruling are clear and the law applied correctly, it shall be sustained; Where the original judgment or ruling has flaws in ascertaining facts, applying law, or expounding reasons, but the judgment is correct, the people's court shall uphold the above flaws after correcting the above flaws in the retrial judgment or ruling.

Article 38: Where people's courts hear a retrial case in accordance with the second-instance trial procedures, and discover that the facts found in the original judgment were erroneous or unclear, they shall change the judgment after clarifying the facts. However, where it is convenient for the original people's court to ascertain the facts and resolve the dispute, it may rule to revoke the original judgment and remand for new trial.

Where the original trial procedures omit parties who must participate in the litigation and cannot reach a mediation agreement, as well as other violations of legally-prescribed procedures that make it inappropriate to directly make a substantive disposition in the retrial procedures, a ruling shall be made to revoke the original judgment and remand for a new trial.

Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China: After a people's court accepts an application, it shall, when necessary, conduct an evaluation of the citizen who is requested to be found to have no or limited capacity for civil conduct. Where the applicant has already provided an evaluation opinion, a review of the evaluation opinion shall be conducted.