https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446226 Territorial jurisdiction for a section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint was upheld because the cheques were presented through the payee's Kilpauk branch and the transfer request had been made before presentation, bringing the case within section 142(2)(a) and its explanation. The objection that the matter was taken up as a summary trial did not vitiate the proceedings, because Magistrates are empowered to try section 138 complaints summarily; at most, any cognizance defect was an irregularity under section 460(e) CrPC and not a nullity under section 461(m). The challenge was rejected. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Nov 2023 07:31:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446226 Territorial jurisdiction for a section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint was upheld because the cheques were presented through the payee's Kilpauk branch and the transfer request had been made before presentation, bringing the case within section 142(2)(a) and its explanation. The objection that the matter was taken up as a summary trial did not vitiate the proceedings, because Magistrates are empowered to try section 138 complaints summarily; at most, any cognizance defect was an irregularity under section 460(e) CrPC and not a nullity under section 461(m). The challenge was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446226