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…!
Jurisdiction for Filing Case - The proper jurisdiction depends on where the cheque was dishonored and the bank branch where it was presented or deposited. Generally, criminal cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be filed in the court within the jurisdiction where the cheque was dishonored or where the bank branch handling the dishonor is located. For example, if the cheque drawn in Haryana is dishonored in Kolkata, the case can be filed in Kolkata, where the bank branch or the dishonor occurred, or where the cheque was deposited or presented ["PRANAB KUMAR MANDAL vs UNITED BANK INDIA - Consumer National"] ["PRANAB KUMAR MANDAL vs UNITED BANK INDIA - Consumer National"].
Deposit and Dishonor of Cheque - Cheques drawn in Haryana but deposited in Kolkata or elsewhere can be dishonored due to insufficient funds or other reasons like Invalid Account or Payment Stopped. The dishonor at the bank branch is crucial in determining the place of filing. For instance, if a cheque drawn in Haryana is dishonored at a Kolkata branch, the case is typically filed in Kolkata ["Sriram Industries & Exports Ltd. VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["PRANAB KUMAR MANDAL vs UNITED BANK INDIA - Consumer National"].
Filing in Different Jurisdictions - If the cheque was drawn in Haryana but dishonored at a Kolkata bank branch, the case should be filed in Kolkata, where the dishonor occurred or where the bank branch is located. Conversely, if the dishonor occurs in Haryana, then Haryana courts have jurisdiction. The location of the bank branch where the cheque was presented or dishonored is critical for jurisdiction ["Mahalaxmi Embroidery VS Shivam Devansh Fab. Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi"].
Legal Proceedings - Criminal proceedings under Section 138 can be initiated by the payee or holder in due course after issuing a legal notice demanding payment. The notice must be sent within 30 days of dishonor, and the complaint should be filed within 15 days of the receipt of the notice ["Lakshmi Industries VS Subir Dass - Punjab and Haryana"].
Additional Insights - Cases also highlight that cheques given as security, or issued in security against loans, are not always enforceable as legal debt unless accompanied by a transaction indicating a debt. Dishonor due to reasons like Insufficient Funds or Invalid Account are common grounds for filing criminal complaints ["Dharmendra Kumar Daga @ Dhramendra Kumar Daga VS Debdutta Sen - Calcutta"] ["Shikha Dey W/o Sri Durgesh Ranjan Dey VS Abhijit International - Gauhati"].
Analysis and Conclusion:When a cheque drawn in Haryana is deposited and dishonored at a Kolkata bank branch, the appropriate court to file a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is typically the court within the jurisdiction where the dishonor occurred or where the bank branch handling the dishonor is situated. The key factors are the location of the bank branch where the cheque was dishonored and where the cheque was deposited or presented. Therefore, in cases of dishonor at Kolkata, the case should be filed in Kolkata, even if the cheque was originally issued in Haryana. Proper jurisdiction is vital for the maintainability of the case and compliance with procedural requirements ["PRANAB KUMAR MANDAL vs UNITED BANK INDIA - Consumer National"] ["PRANAB KUMAR MANDAL vs UNITED BANK INDIA - Consumer National"].
References:["Dharmendra Kumar Daga @ Dhramendra Kumar Daga VS Debdutta Sen - Calcutta"]["G. S. Fertilisers Pvt. Ltd. VS AKJ Minerals Limited - Calcutta"]["PRANAB KUMAR MANDAL vs UNITED BANK INDIA - Consumer National"]["Shikha Dey W/o Sri Durgesh Ranjan Dey VS Abhijit International - Gauhati"]["PRANAB KUMAR MANDAL vs UNITED BANK INDIA - Consumer National"]["Lakshmi Industries VS Subir Dass - Punjab and Haryana"]["Mahalaxmi Embroidery VS Shivam Devansh Fab. Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi"]
Imagine issuing a cheque in Haryana, only for it to be deposited and dishonoured in Kolkata. As a business owner or individual, you're left wondering: cheque drawn at Haryana deposited at kolkata and dishonored where case should be filed? This common scenario under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) hinges on jurisdiction rules clarified by key judicial precedents. Getting it wrong could lead to dismissal of your complaint.
In this post, we break down the legal position, drawing from Supreme Court rulings and related cases. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your situation.
The NI Act doesn't explicitly define jurisdiction for cheque dishonour cases, leading to disputes. However, courts have consistently ruled that the place where the cheque is presented for encashment determines jurisdiction, not where it was drawn or the notice issued. This stems from interpreting Section 142, which ties the cause of action to presentation and dishonour. Vinay Kumar Shailendra VS Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 644Escorts Limited VS Rama Mukherjee - 2013 7 Supreme 116
For your scenario – cheque drawn in Haryana, deposited in Kolkata, and dishonoured there – the case typically should be filed in the Kolkata court with territorial jurisdiction over the presentation bank. Filing in Haryana risks rejection.
Under Section 138, the offence completes with cheque drawing, presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment. But jurisdiction focuses on where the cause of action arises. Supreme Court in Vinay Kumar Shailendra VS Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 644 clarified: Mere presentation of cheques before banks in Delhi when the drawee bank is situated outside Delhi will not confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi courts... This principle applies here – even if drawn on a Haryana bank, Kolkata presentation governs. Vinay Kumar Shailendra VS Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 644
Similarly, Escorts Limited VS Rama Mukherjee - 2013 7 Supreme 116 holds that presentation at a location doesn't automatically confer jurisdiction unless it's for encashment there. The emphasis is on the payee's bank where deposited, as that's where dishonour is informed to the holder.
Other precedents reinforce this:- In a Delhi High Court matter, a cheque drawn on IDBI Bank, Kolkata, deposited in Delhi didn't give Delhi courts jurisdiction: Even if the cheque drawn on a bank outside Delhi is deposited in a bank in Delhi that by itself would not confer... Mr. B.M. Patel vs CITI Bank, NA New DelhiMr. B.M. Patel vs CITI Bank, NA New Delhi- Another Bombay High Court case stressed presentation must be before the drawee bank: Cheques drawn on Nagpur bank, deposited in Mumbai banks, didn't confer Mumbai jurisdiction. Sharda Polycolours Private Limited VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 Supreme(Bom) 1052- In a Karnataka case, a cheque presented and dishonoured at Hospet couldn't be filed at Sandur, leading to conviction set aside due to jurisdiction error. Gopal Krishna VS Abdul Bakai - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 342
These align with the five acts under Section 178(d) CrPC (drawing, presentation to drawee, dishonour, notice receipt, non-payment), prioritizing offender-related acts. Mere payee actions like depositing elsewhere don't count. Sharda Polycolours Private Limited VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 Supreme(Bom) 1052
While presentation is paramount, consider:- Same place issuance and presentation: Jurisdiction clear there.- Security cheques: Presentation date/context may matter, but location still key. E.g., premature deposit didn't alter default date in an IBC case. Moniveda Consultants LLP VS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2604- Drawee vs. collecting bank: Jurisdiction ties to where presented to drawee or informed of dishonour, not just collection bank. Sharda Polycolours Private Limited VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 Supreme(Bom) 1052- Amendments post-2015: Proviso to Section 142(1) allows drawer residence/business place if pre-amendment, but post-2018, payee options expanded – yet presentation remains central. Gopal Krishna VS Abdul Bakai - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 342
Cases like signature mismatch or stop payment don't change jurisdiction rules. Subir Sarkar VS Sk. Anisur Rahaman - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 435
To avoid pitfalls:- File where presented: For Kolkata deposit, approach Magistrate there.- Document presentation: Retain bank memos showing deposit location.- Legal notice strategy: Issue from anywhere, but specify presentation facts to preempt challenges.- Avoid forum shopping: Courts dismiss misfiled cases, wasting time. E.g., Delhi complaints quashed for outstation presentation. Mr. B.M. Patel vs CITI Bank, NA New Delhi- Timelines: Complaint within 1 month of cause of action; jurisdiction errors lead to transfers/delays.
If accused, raise jurisdiction early via CrPC 203/482.
| Case ID | Key Holding ||---------|-------------|| Vinay Kumar Shailendra VS Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 644 | Presentation for encashment determines jurisdiction; notice place irrelevant. || Escorts Limited VS Rama Mukherjee - 2013 7 Supreme 116 | Mere deposit elsewhere doesn't confer jurisdiction. || Sharda Polycolours Private Limited VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 Supreme(Bom) 1052 | Must present to drawee bank; Mumbai deposit of Nagpur cheque invalid. || Mr. B.M. Patel vs CITI Bank, NA New Delhi | Kolkata-drawn cheque in Delhi bank: No Delhi jurisdiction. |
In conclusion, if a cheque drawn in Haryana is deposited and dishonoured at Kolkata, the case under Section 138 NI Act should generally be filed in the Kolkata court – the presentation place. This upholds judicial consistency, preventing multiplicity of proceedings. Vinay Kumar Shailendra VS Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 644Escorts Limited VS Rama Mukherjee - 2013 7 Supreme 116
Key Takeaways:- Prioritize presentation bank location.- Back claims with bank records.- Seek professional advice to navigate nuances.
Stay informed on NI Act updates. For tailored guidance, contact a local advocate. Share your experiences in comments!
References:1. Vinay Kumar Shailendra VS Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 644 – Supreme Court on presentation jurisdiction.2. Escorts Limited VS Rama Mukherjee - 2013 7 Supreme 116 – Reaffirms notice irrelevance.3. Additional cases as cited above.
#ChequeBounce #Section138 #NILaw
However, the post dated cheque on presentation got dishonored. Consequently, the present complaint case being CS No. 32819 of 2015 was filed. ... Both the cheques were drawn on Axis Bank Ltd, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Branch, Kolkata- 700 013. The amount of cheque of Rs.1,12,500/- issued by the accused towards interest was encashed. ... According to the defence witness, the cheque was given as security but after some time the complainant deposi....
Though the aforesaid amount was secured by the deposit of the original title deeds, the plaintiff insisted for issuance of the post-dated cheque and accordingly, the defendant issued two cheques, being cheque No. 117588 dated 8th April, 2014 drawn on Federal Bank, Overseas Branch, Kolkata for a sum of ... Decree be drawn accordingly. ... Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two crore fifty lakhs only) and cheque No. 117590 dated 8th April, 2014 drawn on Federal Bank, Overseas Br....
On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that cheque was dishonored as there was no fund in the account of the complainant. It also transpired that as a matter of fact, Shri Pranab Kumar Mandal had deposited after the cheque was dishonored. ... The complainant deposited Rs.26,900/- by cash on 29.2.2008. It is apparent that he deposited the said amount after the said cheque was dishonored. ... Th....
However, when the said cheque was deposited by the respondent firm, the same was dishonored showing as “Other Reasons (Invalid Account)”. Thereafter only, the respondent firm had issued Legal Notice under Section 138 of N.I. ... She also has drawn the attention of this Court that the cheque was dishonored due to “Other Reasons (Invalid Account)”. 7. ... So after hearing the submission made by the learned Advocate of both sides and perusing the case records, it is seen....
The blank cheque issued could not have been held as security deposited against a legally enforceable debt. However the said cheque was given to the appellant company by the opposite party no.1 only as security. 21. ... The cheque was dishonored, demand notice was sent to the opposite party no.1 by the appellant and the said demand notice was received by the opposite party no. ... In discharge of the liability of payments of the goods/products received, the opposite party no.1 issued one cheque....
A perusal of the cheque in question would show that it has been drawn on IDBI Bank, Kolkata. ... In the complaint filed in respect of dishonour of cheque No.712656, the complainant has specifically alleged that the dishonored cheque was delivered to it at its office „at the above noted ... Even if the cheque drawn on a bank outside Delhi is deposited in a bank in Delhi that by itself would not conf....
A perusal of the cheque in question would show that it has been drawn on IDBI Bank, Kolkata. ... In the complaint filed in respect of dishonour of cheque No.712656, the complainant has specifically alleged that the dishonored cheque was delivered to it at its office „at the above noted ... Even if the cheque drawn on a bank outside Delhi is deposited in a bank in Delhi that by itself would not conf....
It is open and shut case, once the cheque, which was deposited for the collection is dishonored, defendant No.1 is liable to return the cheque amount. ... It is not in dispute that Darshan Singh-defendant No.1 had deposited the cheque drawn by Santokh Singh in his favour for collection in his own account maintained with the plaintiff bank. ... Darshan Singh had deposited the cheque issued in his favour by de....
In the referred case the cheque was dishonored due to stoppage of payment by the drawer. In the instant case the cheque in question was dishonored due to mismatch of signature of the drawer which is not the condition precedent for attracting Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ... The petitioner filed a petition before the trial court stating, inter alia, that the impugned cheque has been dishonored due to “Drawer's signa....
The cheque bearing No. 001523 dated 01.01.2021 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Mumbai for an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was presented to Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata Branch, Kolkata on 26.03.2021 for encashment. ... Therefore, the Financial Creditor had deposited the post-dated cheque prematurely and had subsequently claimed that the default in respect of the loan occurred on the said date on which the bank dishonored the cheque. ... Therea....
When complainant/appellant contacted the accused, he started making excuses and finally payment was not made to the complainant. Act with the averments that accused Yograj received Rs. 14 lacs from the complainant in connection with his business and gave a cheque of Rs. 14 lacs dated 06.09.2014 for payment of amount taken from the complainant. Cheque was deposited in bank but it was dishonored. Hence, he filed complaint case under Section 138 N.I.
3. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the cheque was dishonored at Hospet and complaint was filed at Sandur. The Appellate Court also erred the same and dismissed the appeal. PW.1 also admitted in the cross-examination that the cheque was presented at Hospet and both the Court failed to consider the jurisdiction of the Court which has been raised in the lower Court.
The cheque was drawn at Allahabad Bank Nagaon Branch/ Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata. From the said complaint petition it is seen that the complainant respondent is having its office at Kolkata and in part discharge of legal debts arising out of the loan agreement entered into by the complainant respondent and the petitioner firm, the later issued one account payee cheque in favour of the respondent complainant company. Upon presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured by the drawee bank and returned unpaid due to insufficient fund which was intimated to the resp....
The office note by the Registry on the appeal file is to the following effect : ‘At the time of filing of this case a cheque for statutory amount was deposited with this case by Counsel for the appellant. Another aspect which needs to be highlighted in this case is that the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- required to be deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, was deposited by the appellant vide cheque No.518012 dated 14.10.2011 drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi.
The learned Single Judge after considering the law laid down in K. Bhaskaran's case (supra), and after noticing the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shri Ishar Alloys Steel Limited (supra), and also after referring to the case of Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2007(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 1031,came to the conclusion that the 'presentation of the cheque' has to be before the drawee bank, and not before any other bank. The cheque was deposited by the original complainant – respondent no.1 before the High Court – in HDFC Bank, Juhu Branch, Mumbai and when it was di....
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
