Retrospective application of amendments to The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

The court held that the amendments to The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, apply retrospectively, granting jurisdiction to the court where the payee's bank is situated. The delay in filing the restoration application was excused, and the complaint was restored to its original stage and number for proceedings in the South East District, Saket. The court instructed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to implement the order via the District and Sessions Judge, South East District.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
2. Applicability of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015.
3. Restoration of the complaint.
4. Delay in filing the application for restoration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Trial Court:
The petitioner sought the setting aside of the order dated 08.10.2015 by the learned MM-06, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi, which returned the complaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The complaint was returned as the impugned cheque was drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Basant Lok, New Delhi, outside the jurisdiction of South East District, Delhi. The proceedings had not reached the stage of Section 145(2) of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the recording of evidence had not commenced. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra held that the jurisdiction lies where the cheque is dishonoured.

2. Applicability of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015:
The petitioner argued that the amendments made by The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, which came into force on 15.06.2015, should be applied retrospectively. Section 142A(1) of the Act states that all cases under Section 138 pending in any court should be transferred to the court having jurisdiction under the amended Section 142(2). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh confirmed the retrospective applicability of the amendments, thereby validating the jurisdiction of the court where the payee’s bank is located.

3. Restoration of the Complaint:
The petitioner sought restoration of the complaint to its original stage, arguing that the amendments to The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provided retrospective jurisdiction to the court where the payee’s bank is located. The court agreed, stating that the jurisdiction now lay with the South East District, Delhi, where the payee’s bank (HDFC Bank Ltd., Kalkaji, New Delhi) is situated. The court thus allowed the restoration of the complaint to its original stage and number.

4. Delay in Filing the Application for Restoration:
The petitioner explained that the delay in filing the application for restoration was due to the summer vacation of the courts and the time taken to receive certified photocopies of the complaint and documents. The court condoned the delay, noting that the amendments to The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were retrospectively applicable and that failing to restore the complaint would result in a failure of justice.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the amendments to The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provided retrospective jurisdiction to the court where the payee’s bank is located. The delay in filing the application for restoration was condoned, and the complaint was restored to its original stage and number to be taken up by the learned MM having jurisdiction over the South East District, Saket. The court directed the learned CMM concerned to comply with this order through the learned District and Sessions Judge, South East District.

---