High Court nullifies trial court's orders on jurisdiction in Section 138 case, applies Section 142-A retrospectively

The High Court set aside the trial court's orders based on territorial jurisdiction issues under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Following the insertion of Section 142-A in 2015, granting jurisdiction to courts at both the drawer and drawee bank locations, the High Court held that the amendment applies retrospectively. The petitioners' arguments were supported, leading to the trial court's orders being nullified. The High Court directed the trial court to proceed with the complaints in accordance with the amended law and Supreme Court decisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issue involves setting aside orders based on territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Judgment Summary:

Petitioners' Approach and Trial Court Orders:
The petitioners sought to set aside orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, returning complaints under Section 138 of the Act due to territorial jurisdiction issues. The complaints were related to loan repayment through cheques, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court returned the complaints, citing the need to file them before the appropriate court at the location of the drawer bank.

Contentions and Amendments:
The petitioners argued that post the amendment in 2015 inserting Section 142-A, courts at both the drawer and drawee bank locations have jurisdiction to entertain complaints under Section 138. They referenced a Supreme Court case to support their argument. The petitioners emphasized that the trial court's orders were nullified by the amendment and should be set aside.

Respondent's Agreement and Court Decision:
The respondent agreed with the petitioners regarding the amended law and jurisdictional aspects. The High Court noted the insertion of Section 142-A in 2015, granting territorial jurisdiction to courts at both bank locations. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the High Court held that the amendment has retrospective effect. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, directing the trial court in Bathinda to proceed with the complaints according to law.

Conclusion:
The petitions were allowed, and the trial court was instructed to entertain the complaints and continue with the trial in compliance with the amended law and Supreme Court rulings.

---