SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 986

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S.Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
M/s Kamal Enterprises & Anr. - Petitioner
Vs.
A. K. Constructions Co. - Respondent
Transfer Petition (Criminal) Nos.1035-1056 Of 2024
Decided On : 21-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Amicus Curiae : Mr. Siddharth S.Chapalgaonkar,Adv.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh,Adv. Ms. Preeti Thanvi,Adv. Mr. Achal Singh Bule,Adv. Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Madhulika, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Rai, Adv.

A trial court's jurisdiction in complaints under Section 138 must be contested before the magistrate, who can return complaints to the appropriate court if needed.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Jurisdiction of the Trial Court - Petitioners, accused in complaints filed under Section 138, contend that the Trial Court lacks jurisdiction - It is held that this contention must be raised before the learned Magistrate, who may return the complaint for presentation to the proper Court if territorial jurisdiction is absent. (Paras 2-3)

(B) Personal Appearance - The Trial Court may grant exemption from personal appearance conditioned upon mandatory attendance when required. (Para 4)

Findings of Court:
Transfer Petitions dismissed while reiterating the importance of raising jurisdictional issues before the trial court.

Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed under Section 138.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that matters of jurisdiction must be resolved by the Magistrate and cannot be decided in transfer petitions, maintaining the procedural integrity.

Result: Transfer Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and parties involved. (Para 1)
2. petitioners argue trial court lacks jurisdiction. (Para 2)
3. court's observations on jurisdiction and appearance. (Para 3 , 4)
4. dismissal of transfer petitions. (Para 5)

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are the accused in the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The contention of the petitioners is that the Trial Court before which the complaints have been filed by the respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The petitioners are entitled to raise the said contention before the learned Magistrate who is empowered to return the complaint for presentation to proper Court, if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction.

3. Therefore, this ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be considered in these Transfer Petitions.

4. On an application made by the accused, the Trial Court can always grant exemption from personal appearance subject to condition that whenever their presence is mandatory, they must attend the Court.

5. Subject to what is observed above, the Transfer Petitions are dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top