2025 (7) TMI 1529 - SCH - Indian Laws

Seeking transfer of proceedings u/s 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 - territorial jurisdiction of company s head office in Delhi - complaint should filed at Jaipur (State of Rajasthan) - HELD THAT - Section 25(5) of the 2007 Act provides that provision of Chapter XVII of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall apply to dishonour of electronic funds transfer - Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 falls in Chapter XVII thereof. As per which the place where the collecting bank is complaint can be lodged. It appears from the complaint allegations that the mandate for electronic funds transfer was given by the petitioner for credit to the complainant s account located within the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur Court. There are no justification to accept the transfer prayer - the Transfer Petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Hon'ble Justices Manoj Misra and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, dismissed the petition seeking transfer of Cr. Reg. Case No. 45492 of 2023 under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 ("2007 Act") from Jaipur to New Delhi. The petitioners contended that since the company's head office and the loan transaction (involving an ECS mandate) were within Delhi's territorial jurisdiction, the complaint should not have been filed in Jaipur. However, relying on Section 25(5) of the 2007 Act-which incorporates Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881-and specifically Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act, the Court held that "the place where the collecting bank is, complaint can be lodged." The complaint alleged the electronic funds transfer mandate credited an account within Jaipur's jurisdiction. Thus, the Court found "no justification to accept the transfer prayer" and accordingly dismissed the petition. Pending applications were disposed of.