Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 201 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of cheque - section 138 of NI Act - Maintainability of complaint - territorial jurisdiction - delay in filing complaint - appellant had re-presented its complaint but the same was not entertained, as it was filed beyond the period as stipulated by the court where it was initially filed, while returning the complaint - whether the appellant could maintain its complaint as re-presented? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the complaint filed by the appellant before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts was not maintainable at the material time, as the said Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint when it was instituted. The cheques in question were drawn on Vijaya Bank, Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi. The appellant had presented the cheques through its banker – IDBI Bank, Nehru Palace Branch. The complaint was filed before the learned M.M. Patiala House as the cause of action was stated to have arisen within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kalkaji New Delhi, that is, where the complainant’s bank (IDBI Nehru Palace) – where the cheques in question were deposited – is located. It was not open for the appellant to file its complaint before the learned M.M., Patiala House Courts, who did not have territorial jurisdiction over the place where the respondent’s bank was located (that is, Defence Colony, New Delhi) - Admittedly, in this case, the complaint had not reached the stage of Section 145(2) of the NI Act and thus, at the material time, the learned M.M., Patiala House Courts did not have the jurisdiction to try the said complaint. In terms of Section 142 (A) of the NI Act, as amended by the Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Act, 2015 – which was enacted with retrospective effect from 15.06.2015 – all cases transferred under the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 were deemed to have been transferred under the NI Act. There is no dispute that if the appellant’s complaint was pending before the learned M.M. (Patiala House Courts) or had been re-filed before the Learned MM, South East, Saket Courts the appellant could have the benefit of Section 142(A) (1) of the NI Act as inserted by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance 2015. However, the said ordinance is of little assistance to the appellant since the said case was neither pending before the learned M.M. Patiala House Court nor before the court of learned MM, South East Distt. as on 15th June, 2015, that is, the date on which the said ordinance came into force. The appellant’s complaint stood returned to the appellant by virtue of the order dated 25th August, 2018 passed by the learned M.M. This Court is also of the view that the aforesaid contention is without merit. The logical sequitur of accepting the above contention would be that even if the appellant had not re-filed the said complaint, its complaint would, nonetheless, be required to be adjudicated as a pending case. The present petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is dismissed.
|