Supreme Court Issues Directions to Speed Up MACT Claims Amid Six-Year Average Pendency  ||  Supreme Court: Sex Selection Practices Continues Due to Preference For Male Children  ||  Supreme Court: Injury From a Fallen Tree is Not a Motor Accident for MACT Claims  ||  Madras HC: Recent Tamil Nadu Elections Reflect Voting Beyond Caste and Community Considerations  ||  Supreme Court: Children Should Not Undergo Psychological Tests in Custody Cases Unless Necessary  ||  Jharkhand HC: Lokayukta Cannot Delegate Core Adjudicatory Powers Even in Case Against Brother  ||  Ker HC: Complainant Can Invoke Presumptions After Proving Transaction, Cheque Execution Convincingly  ||  Supreme Court Cancels SARFAESI Auction Sale After 16 Years Due to a 5-Day Payment Delay  ||  Jhar HC Orders 2-Month Probe Deadline, DGP Monitoring to Overhaul Sexual Violence Response in State  ||  Delhi HC: Social Media Cannot Undermine Judiciary; Intermediaries Must Act Without Court Orders    

M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh - (Supreme Court) (24 Nov 2015)

Jurisdiction vested where cheque delivered for collection

Banking

The Supreme Court accepted the explanation that pursuant to the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, “the place where a cheque is delivered for collection, i.e. the branch of the bank of the payee or holder…where the drawee maintains an account, would be determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction.” It noted that on the issue of jurisdiction, Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would take precedence over the Code of Criminal Procedure. It distinguished a previous ruling in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra which would have impeded territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings in the instant case.

Relevant : Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0655/2014

Tags : DISHONOURED CHEQUE   JURISDICTION   COLLECTION   DRAWEE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved