<?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>Section 138 cheque dishonour prosecutions may still be transferred under criminal transfer jurisdiction despite the territorial scheme in Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where comparative inconvenience, hardship, and the ends of justice justify transfer. The relevant inquiry extends beyond physical travel burden to fair-trial impact, including the position of the accused, witnesses, and available evidence. On the stated facts, transfer from Chandigarh to Hyderabad was warranted because the underlying transactions, accused, documents, witnesses, and connected proceedings were centred in Andhra Pradesh, and the complainant&#039;s venue choice did not outweigh the practical hardship to the petitioners. Hyderabad was selected as the transferee forum.</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>Section 138 cheque dishonour prosecutions may still be transferred under criminal transfer jurisdiction despite the territorial scheme in Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where comparative inconvenience, hardship, and the ends of justice justify transfer. The relevant inquiry extends beyond physical travel burden to fair-trial impact, including the position of the accused, witnesses, and available evidence. On the stated facts, transfer from Chandigarh to Hyderabad was warranted because the underlying transactions, accused, documents, witnesses, and connected proceedings were centred in Andhra Pradesh, and the complainant&#039;s venue choice did not outweigh the practical hardship to the petitioners. Hyderabad was selected as the transferee forum.</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>