Bombay HC: Clarifies Procedure for Executing Foreign Decrees  ||  Supreme Court: Bureaucratic Delay No Excuse  ||  Supreme Court Grants Full Disability Pension Arrears to Veterans  ||  Delhi HC: Workman Cannot Claim Section 17(B) of the ID Act Wages after Reaching Superannuation Age  ||  Allahabad HC: Caste by Birth Remains Unchanged Despite Conversion or Inter-Caste Marriage  ||  Delhi High Court: Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Constitute Misconduct  ||  Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities Lack Jurisdiction over Multi-State Establishments  ||  Kerala High Court: Arrest Grounds Need Not Mention Contraband Quantity When No Seizure is Made  ||  SC: Silence During Investigation Does Not Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation to Deny Bail  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Examine Answer Keys Even in Judicial Service Exams    

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