2023 (6) TMI 946 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - complaints had been returned by the trial Court to the petitioners on the premise that the Court at Bathinda had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same - HELD THAT - Both the sides are in agreement that Section 142-A(2) of the Act has been inserted vide amendment in the year 2015 which came into force w.e.f. 15.06.2015. As per amendment, the Courts situated at both the places i.e. of drawer Bank and drawee Bank, would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and further as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (12) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT , the amendment will have retrospective effect. Hence, the impugned orders dated 23.04.2015 (in both petitions) being against the statute and the law laid down, are set aside. The trial Court at Bathinda is directed to entertain the complaints filed by the petitioners and proceed further with the trial as in accordance with law. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issue involves setting aside orders based on territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Judgment Summary:

Petitioners' Approach and Trial Court Orders:
The petitioners sought to set aside orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, returning complaints under Section 138 of the Act due to territorial jurisdiction issues. The complaints were related to loan repayment through cheques, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court returned the complaints, citing the need to file them before the appropriate court at the location of the drawer bank.

Contentions and Amendments:
The petitioners argued that post the amendment in 2015 inserting Section 142-A, courts at both the drawer and drawee bank locations have jurisdiction to entertain complaints under Section 138. They referenced a Supreme Court case to support their argument. The petitioners emphasized that the trial court's orders were nullified by the amendment and should be set aside.

Respondent's Agreement and Court Decision:
The respondent agreed with the petitioners regarding the amended law and jurisdictional aspects. The High Court noted the insertion of Section 142-A in 2015, granting territorial jurisdiction to courts at both bank locations. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the High Court held that the amendment has retrospective effect. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, directing the trial court in Bathinda to proceed with the complaints according to law.

Conclusion:
The petitions were allowed, and the trial court was instructed to entertain the complaints and continue with the trial in compliance with the amended law and Supreme Court rulings.