Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRANJAL DAS
Basit Ahmed Barbhuiya, S/o Mayeen Uddin Barbhuiya – Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRANJAL DAS, J.
Heard Mr. T.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the complainant/bank.
2. The petitioner invoking the powers under Section 407 Cr.P.C. is seeking the transfer of NI case No. 334 c/2023, pending in the court of learned JMFC, Kamrup(M), Guwahati to the court at Silchar, Cachar, where the petitioner stated to be staying, also having his bank account.
3. The respondent/complainant is the State Bank of India through its Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Guwahati represented by its Chief manager.
4. In a short compass, the facts are that the petitioner, as the Managing Director of a firm/concern namely, M/s Asom Pyrolysis Pvt. Ltd., took cash credit limit of Rs. 55 lakhs and a term limit of Rs. 46 lakhs from the State Bank of India, Silchar, Cachar. It appears that due to alleged non- payment, the loan became NPA with regard to which an original application was moved by the bank before the DRT and during its pendency, the petitioner issued a cheque No. 946111 dated 31.10.2022 for Rs. 5 lakhs drawn on SBI, Arunachal, Silchar. The cheque came to be dishonored leading to a complaint giving rise to NI Case
Jurisdiction for cheque dishonor complaints is determined by the location of the bank where the account is maintained, and transfer requests cannot be granted based solely on inconvenience.
Jurisdiction for cheque dishonor cases is primarily determined by the location of the payee's bank, as articulated in Section 142 of the N.I. Act.
Natural jurisdiction in cheque-bouncing cases is determined by the location where the cheque is presented, and mere inconvenience does not justify transfer.
Transfer of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should consider the relative convenience of parties, especially in cases where there is a significant disparity in their socio-economic statu....
Jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act lies where the cheque is presented for collection; mere inconvenience does not justify transfer under Section 406 Cr.P.C.
The jurisdiction for cases under the Negotiable Instrument Act is determined by where the cheque is presented for collection, affirming that local jurisdiction is based on the location of witnesses a....
Transfer petitions dismissed for lack of grounds, reaffirming jurisdiction based on statutory provisions of local bank branch presentation and emphasizing that convenience does not outweigh establish....
The court upheld the jurisdiction of the trial court for cases under Section 138, rejecting transfer petitions based solely on claims of inconvenience.
Jurisdiction under Section 138 cannot be conferred solely by issuing statutory notices from a different location.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
