Territorial jurisdiction under ni act
T.R. Ganesan
(Querist) 11 October 2014
This query is : Resolved
Accused Bank "A" is an employer having business across the country and operating
different type of Bank accounts in different banks. "A" issued the cheques drawn on a Bank situated at Bangalore. The Payee Bank "B" on receipt of the Cheques presentedto his bank at Mumbai. The Payee Bank is the native of far away Dist. of West Bengal,from this Bank "B" is operating the bank accounts. The "B" received the dishonoured (bounced)cheques amounting to more than 30 lacs. Where would be the Territorial jurisdiction under NI Act as well as latest SC judgment.
T. R. Ganesan
Anirudh
(Expert) 11 October 2014
The jurisdiction lies in Banglore.
Sunil S Nair
(Expert) 11 October 2014
Jurisdiction may be either in Mumbai or West Bengal from were B is native
ajay sethi
(Expert) 11 October 2014
jurisdiction would be at bangalore from where the cheques were issued and returned dishonoured on presentation
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 11 October 2014
What do you mean by "Accused Bank "A" is an employer"? If any Bank is operating in India that is with the permission of RBI, and such bank will not allow return of cheques issued by it on financial grounds. You are not revealing the full facts. You can even name these Banks and give the particulars of depositor, the reasons for return of cheques etc., to get a proper answer.
By looking into the query, it is not real, it is imaginary and Dr.Vashista pointed out correctly that it is a professional query. Please do not misuse this forum either improving your knowledge or to test the knowledge of experts.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 11 October 2014
you can file NI/138 at the place where from cheque was issued or where it bounced.
T.R. Ganesan
(Querist) 11 October 2014
Mr. Malipeddi Jaggirao,
With due respect to you as one of the Experts of this honourable institution, in which I am one of the members inclined to enhance my knowledge in the field of legal profession other wise to improve my knowledge is true as this is emanated in view of Apex court judgment by the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction in the matter of Criminal Appeal 2287 of 2009 with regard to determination of the territorial jurisdiction. I had bonafide intention to know the jurisdiction point of view from the experts and not for testing any one's knowledge and only intention is to learn from experts like you. Kindly forgive me if I have hurt your feelings.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 12 October 2014
@Mr. Ganesan,
1. Learning is basic requirement in any profession (including ours) which is unending, but not on this platform.Did you ask this question from your senior or tried to find out yourself from various sources e.g. liberary/net?
2. What is the title of Crl Appeal quoted by you?
3. Did you read recent Supreme Court judgment delivered on 1st August 2014 titled "Rathore Vs. State of Maharashtra"?
T.R. Ganesan
(Querist) 12 October 2014
Dr. J.C. Vashistaji,
Thanmks, I will read tthed rfecent judgment of SC.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 15 October 2014
Mr.Ganesan - pl read your query - Accused Bank "A"
This means Bank A which is having business operations across the country is Accused. I still stand on my advice that no Bank having operations across country will allow to bounce its cheques on financial reasons in normal course. Please let me know the name of the Bank.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 16 October 2014
@Author: First of all before posting a query, please read it once again that whether whatever you have furnished to clarify is correct or not, your terminology accused bank A is confusing, it certainly don't make any sense, it is not clear that whether you put bank itself as an accused? Further, if you have read the latest supreme court verdict on this issue properly, you would not have come out with this subject query because it has more proper answer to your query in it.
