Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The decision reaffirmed the principle that the court at the place where the cheque is presented or where the offence is committed has territorial jurisdiction ["Leela, Keerikkadu Village VS Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, Ernakulam District"].
Main Points and Insights from Related Cases and References:
Several judgments reinforce that the territorial jurisdiction is linked to the location of the bank where the cheque is presented or the dishonor takes place, not merely where notices are issued or sent ["Ramaswami Gounder VS State - 1958 0 Supreme(Ker) 10"], ["M. S. Santhoshkumar VS K. G. Mohanan"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the realm of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), territorial jurisdiction often becomes a battleground. A pivotal Kerala High Court decision, Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (1998(2) KLT 222), initially expanded the scope of where complaints could be filed. But has this ruling stood the test of time? This post delves into the case, its interpretation, and how Supreme Court judgments have reshaped the landscape—offering clarity for businesses, individuals, and lawyers navigating these disputes.
Note: This article provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for case-specific guidance.
The question at hand revolves around Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (1998(2) KLT 222), which addressed territorial jurisdiction for criminal complaints under Section 138 NI Act. Kaipadath Property Development Company VS State Of Kerala The case suggested that courts at the place where the cheque was presented to the bank could exercise jurisdiction. This interpretation allowed complainants flexibility by potentially filing in multiple locations, including where they deposited the cheque.
However, this view has been significantly curtailed by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The mere act of presenting a cheque at a bank in a particular jurisdiction does not confer jurisdiction there. Instead, key locations like the place of cheque issuance, dishonour (at the drawee bank), or issuance of demand notice typically determine the competent court. M. S. Santhoshkumar VS K. G. Mohanan
In Bhaskaran, the Kerala High Court held that the presentation of the cheque could create a cause of action at the presentation venue. This was seen as part of the five-stage process under Section 138: drawing the cheque, presentation, return due to insufficiency, demand notice, and failure to pay. Leela, Keerikkadu Village VS Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, Ernakulam District
But later clarifications emphasized that presentation specifically means to the drawee bank, not the collecting bank or handover spot. The Bhaskaran ruling did not anticipate these nuances.
A three-judge bench in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. unequivocally stated: presentation refers to presentation to the drawee bank, not the collecting bank or a place where the cheque is merely handed over. Bhaskaran: Manoharan Alias Babu VS State Of Kerala This limited jurisdiction expansion, overruling broader interpretations from Bhaskaran. The offence completes upon dishonour at the drawee bank, making its location pivotal. Vinay Kumar Shailendra VS Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
Reinforcing this, Harman Electronics clarified: the offence is complete when the cheque is dishonoured, and the jurisdiction depends on the place of dishonour or issuance, not on where the cheque was presented or notice issued. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra Complainants cannot forum-shop by choosing presentation venues. Satheedevi VS Prasanna
The Supreme Court in Nishant Aggarwal emphasized: jurisdiction cannot be based solely on the complainant's choice to present the cheque at a particular bank. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation Of India LTD. VS Union Of India This aligns with the restrictive approach, prioritizing issuance, dishonour, or notice locales. State of Kerala VS Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit
Kerala courts have echoed these principles. In a 2011 ruling, the High Court held: Jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confined to the locality of the drawee bank only. SUKU vs JAGDISH - 2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1499 The court dismissed cases filed based on the collecting bank's location, stating: presentation of the cheque in the bank of complainant would not give rise to any cause of action. This directly limits Bhaskaran's earlier breadth.
Another case reinforced: the place of issue of notice would not give rise to a cause of action, relying on precedents post-Bhaskaran. SUKU vs JAGDISH - 2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1499 These rulings ensure consistency, preventing jurisdictional multiplicity that could burden defendants.
While the primary jurisdictions are clear, nuances exist:- Place of Issuance or Dishonour: Core venues; drawee bank's location trumps others. Santhosh Kumar VS Mohanan- Demand Notice: Issuance spot may qualify, but not always decisively.- No Forum Shopping: Complainants cannot create jurisdiction via presentation choice. P. V. Hemalatha VS Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda
In practice:- If a cheque issued in Mumbai is dishonoured at a Mumbai drawee bank but presented in Delhi, Delhi courts lack jurisdiction.- Defendants can challenge via Section 406 CrPC transfer petitions if filed incorrectly.
Kerala cases like those involving State of Kerala further illustrate adherence, dismissing claims where jurisdiction hinged on improper factors. K. Karunakaran Pillai VS ChackoPUNNEN THOMAS VS STATE OF KERALA
Future cases should reference these to maintain uniformity. STATE OF KERALA VS K. PRASAD
The Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (1998(2) KLT 222) interpretation on NI Act jurisdiction has been effectively superseded. Supreme Court rulings establish that jurisdiction under Section 138 hinges on cheque issuance, drawee bank dishonour, or notice—not complainant-chosen presentation spots. This promotes fairness, reduces harassment, and streamlines proceedings.
Key Takeaways:- Bhaskaran no longer expands jurisdiction via presentation. Kaipadath Property Development Company VS State Of Kerala- Focus on drawee bank for dishonour. V. Chandrasekaran VS Administrative Officer- Supreme Court trumps earlier High Court views. Shayara Bano VS Union of India
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to safeguard rights in cheque disputes. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts.
HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2. ... STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ... Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552] IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM p style
State of Kerala and others, 2022 (6) KHC 207, following the law laid down in Bhaskaran, 2000 (2) KLT 64 and Kavitha V. ... Public Prosecutor Gr.II in the Kerala State Prosecution Service. ... Public Prosecutor Gr.II in the Kerala State Prosecution Service Department. ... The law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Viswanathan 1993 (2) KLT 381, in the context of Rule 63, Chapter XIVA of KER, w....
State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT SN 43 (C.No.60)) and Ahammedkutty Haji v. ... Sibi (1998 (1) KLT 673) where the Hon'ble Justice K.A. ... State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 68) it was held that merely because the notice was put into post by the Lawyer who has his residence or place of practice at a different centre, such place cannot claim jurisdiction as venue No.4 as per Bhaskaran v. Balan. ... Abdul Kajeed (1995 (2) #HL....
State of Kerala [2007(1) KLT S.N 43 Case No.60] and Ahammedkutty Haji v. ... State of Kerala [2007(1) KLT 68] it was held that merely because the notice was put into post by the Lawyer who has his residence or place of practice at a different Centre, such place cannot claim jurisdiction as venue No.4 as per Bhaskaran v. Balan. ... Sibi [1998 (1) KLT 673] where the Honble Justice K.A.Mohamed Shafi had this to say in para.9: ... ." .....
State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 332) that was affirmed by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. ... The said decision was affirmed by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. ... State of Kerala (supra) after an elaborate analysis of the provisions governing the field and the law on the point, the Division Bench of this Court held that land acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Kerala La....
State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 540) where again relying on the decision in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan & another (supra) it is held that the place of issue of notice would not give rise to a cause of action. ... State of Kerala (2010 (4) KLT 598) again referring to the decision in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan & another (supra). It is held that presentation of the cheque in the bank of complainant would not give rise to any c....
Regulation 33 of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998 provides that every award should be signed by parties. Since the claimant did not sign the settlement, the award is non-est in law. ... Regulation 33 (1) of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations reads as follows: ... “33. ... Sooraj (2006 (1) KLT 203). Thereafter when the appeal was filed, registry also noted that appeal is also not maintainable in view of the decision in Rajeshwari’s case (su....
In State of Kerala v. ... State of Bihar [(2013) 11 SCC 626] as well as State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai [2007 (3) KLT 711] in support of his contention that the appellant will be entitled to arrears of pay for the period during which he was barely denied promotion. ... As against the judgment of the Division Bench, the State of Kerala approached the Apex Court. ... Bhaskaran Pillai [2007(3) KLT#HL_END....
Regulation 33 of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1998 provides that every award should be signed by parties. Since the claimant did not sign the settlement, the award is non-est in law. ... Regulation 33 (1) of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulations reads as follows: “33. ... Sooraj (2006 (1) KLT 203). Thereafter when the appeal was filed, registry also noted that appeal is also not maintainable in view of the decision in Rajeswari's case (supra). ....
State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 353) 14. In Bhaskaran v. ... State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 720) this Court had occasion to elucidate on the legal obligation cast on the prosecution to prove that the sample allegedly seized from the accused eventually reached the hands of the Chemical Examiner in a tamper-proof condition. ... State of Kerala (2021 (1) KLT 793) while dealing with a case in which forwarding note/requisi....
A Full Bench of this court in Usha Thayyil vs. State of Kerala 2009 (4) KLT 1 (FB) had upheld the view taken by this court in the decisions in George vs. In George's case (cited supra) while interpreting provisions contained in Rule 44(1) of Chapter XIV A of KER, it was held that a relinquishment submitted on an earlier occasion cannot be used for denying appointment in the subsequently arising vacancy and that there cannot be any permanent relinquishment to the post of Headmaster. State of Kerala (1998 (2) KLT 637) and in Rajasree vs.
It has been held that eventhough the Sessions Court or the High Court cannot grant anticipatory bail in view of Sec. 18 of Act 33 of 1989, there is no bar for the Magistrate concerned to grant bail . (See Alex v. State of Kerala - 2007 (2) KLT 466 , Shanu v. State of Kerala 2000 (3) KLT 452, Ali v. State of Kerala -2000 (2) KLT 280, P.P. Khader v. State of Kerala - 2005 KHC 2063 and Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala - 2005 KHC 2058).
We may notice that this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai (1997 (2) KLT 217). This, in our view, also indicates that the first respondent could not have let out any part of Travancore House Palace building without inviting tenders and without giving all citizens an opportunity to compete 'in the matter of getting a lease of the premises. but that the land !lad to be disposed of only in terms of the relevant rules or at market value. That was in Bhaskaran Pillai v. State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 332).
iv) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samithi v. Makrand Singh and ors. (1995 (2) SCC 497) iv) Lt. K. Padmadas v. State of Kerala (1LR 1991 (3) Ker. 414) v) M. Syed Mohammed Shaft & Ors. v. State of Kerala (1996 (1) KLJ 202) i) Khadim Hussuin v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1976(1) SCC 483) ii) Bhaskara Panicker v. State of Kerala (1989 (2) KLT 71) ii) Bhaskara Panicker v. State of Kerala (1989 (2) KIT 71) iii) Bhaskara Panicker v. State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 580) Bhaskara Panicker v. State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 580) v) S.H. Rangappa v. Slate of Karnatak....
In support of their contention, the decision of the Supreme court reported in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Cyan Devi (dead) by L.Rs. & Ann etc. etc. Respondents (AIR 1995 SC 724) and a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 683) are pointed out.
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
