2018 (9) TMI 1077 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - territorial jurisdiction would be within the local jurisdiction of the branch of the bank - power of Supreme Court to transfer cases - Held that - Even though the place where the cheque was presented for encashment by complainant/Respondent No.2 is Bhubaneswar, Orissa and in view of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, the territorial jurisdiction would be within the local jurisdiction of the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account which in the present case is Overseas Bank, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, however, the power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases is on an entirely different level. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of case under Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.
2. Interpretation of Section 142A of the New Act.
3. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases under Articles 139A, 136, and 142 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Transfer of case under Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015
The writ petition challenged the order transferring a case from Delhi to Bhubaneswar under the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015. The case involved a financial dispute between a complainant and a petitioner regarding dishonored cheques. The Supreme Court had previously transferred the case to Delhi, but the Metropolitan Magistrate re-transferred it to Bhubaneswar based on the Ordinance. The petitioner's application to recall the transfer order was dismissed, citing Section 142A of the New Act, which mandates the transfer of cases under section 138 to the court with jurisdiction. However, the court noted that the Supreme Court's transfer order prevails over the Ordinance, as seen in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, and set aside the impugned orders.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 142A of the New Act
The court analyzed Section 142A of the New Act, emphasizing the non obstante clause's legislative intent for transfer of cases under section 138. The court highlighted that the transfer must occur irrespective of any contrary judgment, ensuring the legislative purpose is upheld. The court's interpretation clarified that the Supreme Court's transfer order supersedes the Ordinance, maintaining consistency with the principles outlined in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan.

Issue 3: Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases under Articles 139A, 136, and 142 of the Constitution of India
The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's authority to transfer cases under Articles 139A, 136, and 142 of the Constitution of India to serve the interest of justice. It established that even in the absence of specific provisions for transfers to/from certain regions like Jammu and Kashmir, the Supreme Court retains the power to direct transfers if essential for justice. The court cited Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India to affirm that the Supreme Court's transfer powers under Article 142 are at a higher level, not restricted by ordinary statutes. This analysis underscored the court's conclusion that the Supreme Court's transfer order prevails over statutory provisions, ensuring access to justice and upholding fundamental rights.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned orders and disposed of the petition, emphasizing the precedence of the Supreme Court's transfer order over the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, in line with the principles established in relevant legal precedents.