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...
Objectives and Key Themes
This paper aims to analyze the judicial pronouncements regarding the territorial jurisdiction of dishonoured cheques in India, specifically focusing on the period before and after the implementation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015. The paper explores how the amendment has impacted the interpretation and application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which deals with the offense of dishonouring a cheque.
- Territorial jurisdiction in dishonour of cheque cases
- Impact of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015
- Analysis of pre- and post-amendment case law
- The Bhaskaran and Harman cases and their implications
- Understanding the complexities and nuances of determining jurisdiction
Chapter Summaries
- Introduction: The chapter introduces the concept of dishonouring cheques and its significance in the commercial world, providing a context for the legal framework that governs such offenses. It defines the key provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which deals with the criminal offense of dishonouring a cheque due to insufficient funds. It highlights the specific circumstances that lead to a dishonoured cheque, along with the penalties imposed on the drawer of the cheque for failing to honor the payment within the prescribed timeframe.
- The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015: This section focuses on the introduction of Section 142(2) into the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, through the 2015 amendment. This amendment aimed to clarify jurisdictional issues in cases involving offences under Section 138. The amendment specified that the court with local jurisdiction over the bank branch where the payee presents the cheque for payment would have the authority to inquire into and try the offence. The chapter further delves into the implications of Section 142 A, particularly regarding the transfer of pending cases and the handling of subsequent complaints against the same drawer. It clarifies that the court where the initial case is filed or transferred would retain jurisdiction over all future complaints against the drawer, regardless of the location where the cheque was presented for payment.
- The Bhaskaran And Harman Case- The dilution: This chapter discusses the landmark cases of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., which revolved around the interpretation of territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases. It highlights the divergent opinions expressed by the courts in these cases, focusing on the key arguments presented and the implications of these judgments on the understanding of Section 138 of the Act. The chapter examines how the Bhaskaran case emphasized the need for flexibility in determining jurisdiction, allowing for the prosecution of the offence to take place in any location where any of the five components of the offense occurred. However, the Harman case presented a contrasting perspective, proposing a stricter interpretation of the provisions and arguing for a more specific determination of jurisdiction.
Keywords
This paper focuses on the judicial trend of territorial jurisdiction in dishonour of cheque cases in India. It examines the key legislation, namely the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and its amendments, specifically the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015. The paper analyzes important case law, including the Bhaskaran and Harman cases, which provide insights into the evolving legal interpretations of territorial jurisdiction in relation to cheque dishonour offenses. The analysis explores the interplay between the provisions of the law and the judicial decisions that shape the understanding of jurisdiction in this context, ultimately aiming to shed light on the current state of legal practice and interpretation in this area.
- 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
