TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY CHEQUE BOUNCE CASES

Advocate S Selvakumar|Property advocates in Bangalore|Property lawyers in Bangalore

While hearing a petition difficult the territorial jurisdiction of a court to do an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Honorable Supreme Court has command that solely a tribunal in whose jurisdiction an offence of cheque bounce is committed can strive the case. 

The Apex court ascertained that there are varied instances wherever grievances are being filed at over one place to harass an defendant and command that the court can't be oblivious of the very fact that a banking establishment holding many cheques signed by an equivalent recipient can't solely gift the cheque for its encashment at four totally completely different places however conjointly might serve notices from four different places thus on alter it to file four complaint cases at four different places. This solely causes grave harassment to the defendant. It is, therefore, necessary to strike a balance between the proper of the plaintiff and also the right of a defendant vis-a-vis the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an exceedingly case of this nature. Jurisdiction of the court to do a criminal case is ruled by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and not on common law principle. 

The Honorable Court has additional ascertained that the complainants, as well as money establishments and banks, whereas filing cheque bounce cases, ought to make sure that no inconvenience is caused to the defendant. These observations were created by the apex court throughout the hearing of a case between Harman physical science and National Panasonic India (NPI) underneath the Negotiable Instruments Act. 

Harman physical science and NPI had entered into dealings in Chandigarh and a cheque issued by the previous at Chandigarh was dishonored within the town itself. However, NPI had filed a grievance in Delhi, when supply a notice from New Delhi to Harman physical science in Chandigarh, asking the corporate to pay Rs 5lakh. 

The company then questioned the jurisdiction of the Court of further Sessions choose, New Delhi, within the case.The judicature commands that it had jurisdiction to entertain the grievance because the notice was sent to the defendant from Delhi and also the plaintiff was having its registered workplace in Delhi. The Apex court whereas holding the judgement in favor of the corporate aforesaid the Delhi high court had no jurisdiction to do the case and also the same ought to be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction.

More,

Business lawyers

Advocate Selvakumar