<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784260</link>
    <description>SC considered whether proceedings under s.138 NI Act should be transferred under s.446 BNSS to meet the ends of justice, focusing on territorial jurisdiction engineered by presenting cheques at a distant branch. Holding that s.138 is quasi-criminal and primarily affects private parties, the Court applied a convenience-and-hardship assessment, rejecting a complainant&#039;s stratagem to create jurisdiction where it disproportionately burdens the accused. Given the complainant&#039;s nationwide presence, the transaction and defence evidence being located near the accused, and related proceedings arising from the same transaction pending at a tribunal and HC, the Court ordered transfer to the CMM, Hyderabad as a neutral forum convenient to both parties, and directed placement before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench on the jurisdiction issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:18:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784260</link>
      <description>SC considered whether proceedings under s.138 NI Act should be transferred under s.446 BNSS to meet the ends of justice, focusing on territorial jurisdiction engineered by presenting cheques at a distant branch. Holding that s.138 is quasi-criminal and primarily affects private parties, the Court applied a convenience-and-hardship assessment, rejecting a complainant&#039;s stratagem to create jurisdiction where it disproportionately burdens the accused. Given the complainant&#039;s nationwide presence, the transaction and defence evidence being located near the accused, and related proceedings arising from the same transaction pending at a tribunal and HC, the Court ordered transfer to the CMM, Hyderabad as a neutral forum convenient to both parties, and directed placement before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench on the jurisdiction issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>