M/S SHRI SENDHURAGRO AND OIL INDUSTRIES v. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.
Discusses principles of jurisdiction, transfer of cases, and interpretation of key provisions in CrPC and NI Act.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 328
Decision Date: 06-03-2025
List of Laws
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Banking Regulation Act, 1949; General Principles of Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The judgment extensively discusses Section 406 CrPC, focusing on the Supreme Court's power to transfer cases and appeals. It interprets the phrase "expedient for the ends of justice" within Section 406, emphasizing that transfers should not be based solely on the convenience of parties but on a well-substantiated apprehension of injustice. The judgment refers to Section 2(d) CrPC, defining "complaint", and Sections 177 to 184 CrPC, regarding jurisdiction of criminal courts. It also discusses Sections 460, 461, and 462 CrPC, which deal with irregularities in proceedings. The judgment cites several cases to illustrate the application of Section 406, including *Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana and Ors.* and *Bhiaru Ram & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.*, detailing the principles governing the exercise of transfer powers.
- The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The judgment extensively discusses Section 138 of the NI Act, concerning dishonor of cheques, and Section 142 of the NI Act, relating to cognizance of offences. It analyzes the impact of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, particularly the insertion of Section 142A, which provides for validation for transfer of pending cases. The judgment refers to *Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra* and *Yogesh Upadhaya and Another v. Atlanta Limited* to interpret the jurisdictional aspects of Section 138 and Section 142, including the significance of the branch of the bank where the cheque is delivered for collection. The judgment also discusses the non-obstante clause in Section 142(1) and its effect on the power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases under Section 406 CrPC.
- Banking Regulation Act, 1949: The judgment mentions that the Respondent is a Banking company within the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, but does not provide any further details or discussion on any specific sections.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, particularly in the context of transfer petitions. It emphasizes the need for a fair trial, free from bias and extraneous influences. The judgment also touches upon the principle that the complainant generally has the right to choose the forum with jurisdiction, and courts should not interfere unless the ends of justice are hampered. It refers to the concept of "cause of action" and its relevance in determining jurisdiction, citing *State of Madras v. C.P. Agencies*.
🔒 For Members Only