TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Supreme Court rejects petition to transfer cheque dishonour case citing Section 142(2) Negotiable Instruments Act jurisdiction rules</h1> <h3>M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.</h3> M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. - 2025 INSC 328 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Court considered the following core legal questions:i. Whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be transferred from one court to another under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. due to lack of territorial jurisdictionRs.ii. If the court where the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed lacks territorial jurisdiction, can the Supreme Court transfer the case to the appropriate jurisdiction under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C.Rs.iii. Does the expression 'for the ends of justice' in Section 406 Cr.P.C. include lack of territorial jurisdiction for offences under Section 138 of the N.I. ActRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue i: Transfer of Complaint Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 138 of the N.I. Act outlines the offence of cheque dishonour, while Section 142 specifies the court's jurisdiction for such offences. Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. allows the Supreme Court to transfer cases for the ends of justice.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the jurisdiction to try offences under Section 138 is determined by where the cheque is delivered for collection or presented for payment. The Court emphasized that the territorial jurisdiction is not solely a matter of convenience but is defined by statutory provisions.- Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the complaint was filed in Chandigarh because the cheque was presented there for collection, which is permissible under Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act.- Application of law to facts: The Court applied the statutory framework to determine that the filing of the complaint in Chandigarh was legally permissible, thereby negating the argument for transfer based on lack of jurisdiction.- Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued for transfer based on convenience and alleged harassment, while the respondent bank maintained the legal basis for filing in Chandigarh. The Court found the bank's position consistent with statutory provisions.- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the complaint's filing in Chandigarh was legally valid and did not warrant transfer based on jurisdictional grounds.Issue ii: Transfer Under Section 406 Cr.P.C.- Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 406 Cr.P.C. allows for transfer of cases to ensure justice. The Court reviewed precedents where transfers were allowed for reasons beyond mere convenience.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that transfer under Section 406 should be based on substantial grounds that impact the ends of justice, not merely on convenience or language barriers.- Key evidence and findings: The Court found no substantial evidence that justice would be compromised if the case remained in Chandigarh.- Application of law to facts: The Court determined that the petitioner's arguments did not meet the threshold for transfer under Section 406, as they were primarily based on convenience rather than justice.- Treatment of competing arguments: The Court weighed the petitioner's claims of inconvenience against the statutory framework and found the latter to be more compelling.- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner's request for transfer did not satisfy the criteria under Section 406 Cr.P.C.Issue iii: Interpretation of 'Ends of Justice'- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined the meaning of 'ends of justice' in the context of procedural law and previous rulings.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted 'ends of justice' to mean justice for all parties involved and not merely convenience for one party.- Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the petitioner's arguments did not demonstrate a failure of justice that would necessitate a transfer.- Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that the statutory right to choose a forum should not be overridden without compelling reasons.- Treatment of competing arguments: The Court considered the petitioner's claim of harassment but found no substantial evidence to support a transfer for the ends of justice.- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner's request did not align with the principles of justice as interpreted under Section 406 Cr.P.C.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The jurisdiction to try such an offence would vest only in the Court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the Bank where the cheque was delivered for collection, through the account of the payee or holder in due course, is situated.'- Core principles established: The Court reaffirmed that territorial jurisdiction under the N.I. Act is defined by statutory provisions and not merely by convenience. Transfer under Section 406 Cr.P.C. requires substantial grounds impacting justice, not just convenience.- Final determinations on each issue: The Court dismissed the transfer petition, upholding the statutory framework for jurisdiction under the N.I. Act and the criteria for transfer under Section 406 Cr.P.C.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
