Retrospective jurisdictional amendment under the Negotiable Instruments Act applied to pending complaints after a stayed return order

A stayed order returning complaints did not make the proceedings cease to be pending, because the stay prevented the return direction from taking effect and the complainant was not required to re-file elsewhere. The later jurisdictional amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act, introducing the revised forum under Section 142(2) read with Section 142A, was treated as retrospective and applicable to pending complaints. On that basis, objections based on functus officio, non-pendency, limitation and forum shopping were rejected, and the complaints were transferred to the court having territorial jurisdiction over the relevant bank branch.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether complaints returned pursuant to an earlier territorial-jurisdiction ruling could still be treated as pending when the return order had remained stayed; (ii) Whether the amended jurisdictional scheme under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applied retrospectively so as to permit transfer of the complaints to the court having jurisdiction over the payee's bank branch.

Issue (i): Whether complaints returned pursuant to an earlier territorial-jurisdiction ruling could still be treated as pending when the return order had remained stayed.

Analysis: The stay of the order directing return of the complaints meant that the complainant was not bound to take back the complaints or re-file them elsewhere. The stay prevented the return order from taking effect, and the complaints continued in the same position as before that order. The fact that the earlier order had been challenged and stayed negatived the objection that the Magistrate had become functus officio or that the complaints had ceased to be pending for purposes of the later statutory amendment.

Conclusion: The complaints were still to be treated as pending, and no adverse consequence could follow from non-compliance with the stayed return order.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended jurisdictional scheme under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applied retrospectively so as to permit transfer of the complaints to the court having jurisdiction over the payee's bank branch.

Analysis: The later amendment introducing Section 142(2) and Section 142A was intended to neutralise the effect of the earlier territorial-jurisdiction ruling and was held to operate retrospectively. The governing jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 shifted to the court where the payee's or holder's bank branch is situated. Since the complaints had not been finally removed from the original court and the amended law applied to pending matters, the objections based on lack of pending status, re-filing, limitation, and forum shopping were rejected.

Conclusion: The amended provisions applied retrospectively, and the complaints were liable to be transferred to the competent court at Patiala House Courts.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, and the complaints were transferred to the court having territorial jurisdiction over the relevant bank branch; costs were also awarded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a return order directing presentation of complaints before another court remains stayed, the complaints continue to be pending, and a subsequent retrospective jurisdictional amendment must be applied to such pending proceedings to determine the proper forum.

---