2014 (12) TMI 1364 - HC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction - Dishonor of Cheque - territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try cases filed under Section 138 of NI Act - whether Delhi Courts would have territorial jurisdiction to try the cases instituted under Section 138 of NI Act merely because the cheques in question are payable at par at all branches of drawee bank being multi-city cheques and one of the branches of drawee bank is situated at Delhi? HELD THAT - No doubt a cheque which is made payable at par / multi-city cheque can be presented at any of the branches of bank which has been nominated as CBS branch of the drawee bank in terms of the recent guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India vide circular dated 10.08.2012 (Annexure P-5 with the petition) . However it is to be noticed that the said guidelines had been issued by Reserve Bank of India with altogether different object. The said object is to facilitate speedy encashment of amount against cheques more particularly in cases of out stationed cheques. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the past there used to be considerable delay in collection of out- stationed cheques which led to number of complaints from customers and members of public at large. The average time consumed in the out-stationed cheque used to be somewhere between seven days to one month. In order to improve the service with regard to collection of out-stationed cheques facility of cheques which are payable at par / multi-city cheques was introduced in the banking system. In order to regulate the same Reserve Bank of India also issued policy which is known as Policy on Multi-city/payable at par CTS 2010 Standard Cheques. A perusal of the said policy would reveal that certain limit has been prescribed on payment of multi-city cheques at non-home branches as mentioned therein. There is another reason due to which the contention raised on behalf of petitioner/ complainant cannot be sustained. The cheque amount is supposed to be paid from the account of accused/respondents maintained at home branch of drawee bank. It is merely as a result of computerization of all the branches of bank facility has been provided for encashment of cheques payable at par at any branch irrespective of the fact that account holder was not having bank account in the branch where the cheque is presented. Merely because the cheque has been presented at non-home of drawee bank it does not in any manner become the drawee bank for the obvious reason that before encashing the cheque payable at par the non-home branch is still required to verify from home branch of the drawee branch as to whether or not there was any impediment in encashment of the cheque drawn at home branch. Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint(s) which are subject matter of the present petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction for filing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
3. Impact of Core Banking Solutions (CBS) and multi-city cheques on territorial jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction for Filing Complaints Under Section 138 of the NI Act:
The primary issue is whether the Delhi Courts have territorial jurisdiction to try cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, merely because the cheques in question are 'payable at par' at all branches of the drawee bank, including one situated in Delhi. The petitioner argued that the complaint could be filed where the cheque was presented for encashment, while the respondents contended that jurisdiction lies only with the court where the drawee bank's home branch is situated.

2. Applicability of the Supreme Court Judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.:
The trial court returned the complaints to the petitioner for filing in the appropriate court with territorial jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, which held that the jurisdiction to try cases under Section 138 of the NI Act is restricted to the court where the cheque is dishonoured. The High Court affirmed this view, emphasizing that the place of issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the complainant chooses to present the cheque for encashment is irrelevant for territorial jurisdiction purposes.

3. Impact of Core Banking Solutions (CBS) and Multi-City Cheques on Territorial Jurisdiction:
The petitioner argued that due to CBS and RBI guidelines, cheques payable at par can be presented at any branch of the drawee bank, thereby allowing the complaint to be filed where the cheque was presented. However, the court noted that the RBI guidelines aimed to facilitate speedy encashment of out-stationed cheques and did not alter the territorial jurisdiction for filing complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court highlighted that the cheque amount is payable from the account maintained at the home branch of the drawee bank, and presenting the cheque at a non-home branch does not change the drawee bank's character or confer jurisdiction on courts where the non-home branch is situated.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that Delhi Courts do not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaints in question. The complaints were ordered to be returned to the petitioner for filing in the appropriate courts with jurisdiction within 30 days. The impugned order dated 23.08.2014 by the trial court was maintained, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.