TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 142(2)(a): Cheque Dishonour Complaints Must Be Filed at Payee's Home Branch Jurisdiction</h1> The HC held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Act, the home branch where the payee holds the account is the proper jurisdiction for filing a cheque ... Dishonour of Cheque - territorial jurisdiction - maintenance of complaint at the branch where it holds account - trial Court without referring to the affidavit filed by the petitioner and giving any opportunity to furnish all account particulars has passed the impugned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Section 142(2)(a) of the Act coupled with the explanation to the same makes it clear that even if the payee presents the cheque at another branch of his Bank, the home branch where he holds his account shall be deemed to be the branch where the cheque is presented for collection. Thereby he can maintain the complaint in a Court within whose jurisdiction his home branch situates. In this case, the learned Magistrate at Delhi himself requested the petitioner to file affidavit mentioning the names and particulars of its Bank account. The petitioner submitted the affidavit to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Acting upon such affidavit, the Magistrate transferred the cases to Bengaluru Court. The respondents have not challenged those orders. The trial Court even without referring to the affidavit and calling upon the petitioner to produce the proof of the account particulars, by the impugned orders returned the complaints. The said orders are violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 142(2) of the Act. Therefore the petitions are allowed. The matters are restored to files of the trial Court - Petition allowed. ISSUES: Whether the Court where the payee or holder in due course maintains the bank account has jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the cheque is presented for collection at a different branch of the same bank.Whether the trial Court was correct in returning the complaints on the ground that the cheques were issued, presented, and dishonoured at a different location, without considering the affidavit filed by the complainant regarding the home branch of its bank account.Whether the trial Court's order returning the complaints without giving an opportunity to produce proof of account particulars violates principles of natural justice. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 'the home branch where [the payee] holds his account shall be deemed to be the branch where the cheque is presented for collection,' thus conferring jurisdiction to try the offence to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the home branch is situated.The trial Court erred in returning the complaints on jurisdictional grounds without referring to the affidavit filed by the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to produce proof of account particulars.The impugned orders returning the complaints were found to be 'violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Section 142(2) of the Act,' and therefore were quashed. RATIONALE: The Court applied Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by Amendment Act No. 26/2015, which restricts the jurisdiction to try offences under Section 138 to courts within whose local jurisdiction the relevant bank branch is situated.The Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) clarifies that if a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the payee's bank, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch where the payee maintains the account, thereby establishing jurisdiction.The Court emphasized adherence to procedural fairness by requiring the trial Court to consider the affidavit filed by the complainant and to provide an opportunity to produce evidence before deciding on jurisdictional issues, reflecting principles of natural justice.There was no dissent or doctrinal shift; the Court followed established statutory interpretation and precedent, including reliance on judgments affirming the home branch jurisdiction principle.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
