This thesis is about cheques and their territorial distinction in India. The series of cases discussed above surely shows a changing trend pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction in cases of offences committed u/s 138 of the NI, Act, 1881. The Bhaskaran case has been a precedent in all cases relating to the concerned matter but its ratio had to be diluted by the series of cases which came after it. It is essential to understand that there is a demarcation between the completion of the offence and the cognizance of the offence for taking it to prosecution.
The case of Dasharath has been the trend setting case to absolutely dilute and overrule the ratio of the Bhashkaran case, and urge for the Amendment Act to make amends in the NI, Act and insert the provisions providing guidelines for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try the complaints filed u/s. 138 of the NI, Act, 1881. Thus, the cases, after the ordinance definitely favoured the drawee from all the distress, he would go through over cheques being dishonoured on being presented due to further litigation. There is a definite shift in the territorial jurisdiction as to from the place of the cheque being issued to the place of cheque being collected or presented by the payee in the bank. It also guides through in situations of transfer of cases to the original jurisdiction when there are multiple pending cases.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015
The Bhaskaran And Harman Case- The dilution
Judicial Trend of Territorial Jurisdiction
a) Pre- Amendment Act or Post Bhaskaran Case
b) Post- Amendment Act or position post the Dasharath Case
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the evolution of judicial interpretation regarding territorial jurisdiction in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, specifically analyzing the shift in legal trends before and after the 2015 Amendment Act.
- Analysis of Section 138 and the legal components of cheque dishonour.
- Evaluation of the impact of landmark judgments like K. Bhaskaran and Dasharath Rupsingh Rathod.
- Examination of the legislative intent behind the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015.
- Review of judicial trends concerning court jurisdiction in post-amendment litigation.
- Discussion on the transfer of pending cases to ensure competent jurisdiction.
Excerpt from the Book
The Bhaskaran And Harman Case- The dilution
The landmark case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan,7 pronounced by a two-bench judge, revolved around the issue as to whether the complaint filed was liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate court. And pondered upon the difficulty in fixing up any particular locality as a place of occurrence. This very case, may draw one to make stricter interpretations of the Section 138 of NI, Act. Wherein the court held that, in order to try any offences committed under the said section, it is not necessary that all the five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality.
It listed five components of the offence committed: (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The jurisdiction cannot be determined pertaining to the place where the cheque was dishonoured, where dishonour of the cheque alone cannot be an offence under the Section 138 but it shall be construed as an offence when the drawer of the cheque has failed to pay the stipulated amount within a period of fifteen days. The court further held that, any court can assume its jurisdiction at any place where the five components of the offence that was committed or the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides a legal definition of cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act and outlines the statutory framework of Section 138 regarding dishonour of cheques.
The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015: Details the legislative insertions of Section 142(2) and 142 A, which establish specific rules for territorial jurisdiction and the transfer of pending cases.
The Bhaskaran And Harman Case- The dilution: Analyzes the judiciary's struggle to define the place of occurrence for cheque dishonour offences and the subsequent narrowing of the Bhaskaran precedent.
Judicial Trend of Territorial Jurisdiction: Reviews various court rulings pre- and post-2015 Amendment, highlighting the transition from broad interpretation to location-specific jurisdiction.
Conclusion: Summarizes the paradigm shift in jurisdiction, noting how the law moved from the place of issue to the location where the cheque is collected or presented.
Keywords
Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138, Territorial Jurisdiction, Dishonour of Cheques, Amendment Act 2015, K. Bhaskaran case, Dasharath Rupsingh Rathod, Judiciary, Magistrate Court, Payee, Drawer, Cheque Presentation, Legal Precedent, Litigation, Jurisdiction Transfer.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
This paper focuses on the judicial trends regarding territorial jurisdiction in cases involving the dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
What are the central themes discussed in this work?
The work covers the legislative background of the 2015 Amendment, the evolution of judicial interpretations through landmark cases, and the practical challenges of determining jurisdiction.
What is the main research question or objective?
The objective is to analyze how the judiciary transitioned its approach to territorial jurisdiction, moving from the broad criteria established in the Bhaskaran case to the more specific requirements introduced post-2015.
Which scientific or legal methodology is employed?
The paper utilizes a legal analytical approach, examining case law, judicial pronouncements, and statutory provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main sections cover the statutory provisions of Section 138, the history of landmark Supreme Court rulings, and a detailed review of various High Court and Supreme Court decisions post-amendment.
Which keywords characterize this research?
Key terms include Negotiable Instruments Act, Territorial Jurisdiction, Dishonour of Cheques, Judicial Trend, and the 2015 Amendment Act.
How does the Dasharath Rupsingh Rathod case impact current law?
The Dasharath case is identified as a trend-setting judgment that overruled the Bhaskaran ratio, necessitating the 2015 Amendment to provide clearer guidelines on jurisdiction.
What does the 2015 Amendment establish regarding pending cases?
The Amendment, through Section 142 A, provides provisions for the transfer of pending cases to courts that hold competent jurisdiction to avoid legal complications.
Is the territorial jurisdiction now determined by where the cheque is issued?
No, there has been a shift; jurisdiction is now largely determined by the place where the cheque is presented or collected by the payee in their bank.
- Quote paper
- N. Priyadarshini (Author), 2020, The judicial trend of territorial jurisdiction in India. Dishonor of cheques, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/972513
