Jurisdiction dilemma underneath the Tradable Devices Act

Jurisdiction Dilemma under Tradable Instruments Act, written by Surya Sunilkumar, a student at the Ramaiah Institute of Legal Studies

M / S Himalaya Self Farming Group & Anr. Vs M / s Goyal Feed Suppliers


Determining the jurisdiction of the court is necessary in order to initiate legal proceedings. On 9/16/2020, the bank headed by Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian issued a ruling on jurisdiction to attempt the offense if the check is delivered for collection through an account. This decree issued has expressed the conflicts over jurisdiction.

Facts of the case

The petitioner filed a transfer of petitions under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to request the transfer of the proceedings filed by the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. The petition was transferred by the court of the additional Supreme Judge Agra, Uttar Pradesh to the competent court in Siliguri, Darjeeling, West Bengal.

Objections of the petitioner

The petitioner’s lawyer requested that the case be referred on the following points:
• As part of the delivery restriction, all disputes between the parties are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in Siliguri, West Bengal.
• The petitioners have already filed a complaint regarding the offenses committed by the Respondent and while the complaint is pending, the present case has been initiated.
• If the respondent is based in Siliguri, there was no reason to file a complaint with Agra other than harassing the petitioners.


The Hon’ble Tribunal made some observations on the objections raised in the petitions and therefore ruled as follows:
I. The first claim was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner could have advanced the argument for jurisdiction of other courts in the Agra Court. This argument could not be a reason to request a petition transfer.
ii. The fact that the petitioner had already filed a criminal complaint against the respondent for the poor quality of the feed supplied to the petitioner cannot be considered a reason for the transfer.
iii. The petitioner’s allegation regarding the harassment by the respondent is unsustainable as the respondent can file a complaint with the court in whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank in which the payee maintains the account is located, pursuant to Section 142 (2) lit. . A of the Tradable Instruments Act,
Therefore, the petition was dismissed by the court, stating that the reasons given by the petitioner are unsustainable and cannot be a reason for the transfer from the court of Agra Uttar Pradesh to the court of Siliguri, West Bengal.


The decision of the Supreme Court of India had clearly stated that the courts had jurisdiction over cases under the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881. The applicability of section 142 (2) letter A is clear, hence the decision of the Hon ‘. The judge is justified and accurate.

Comments are closed.