NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved