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

Abstract

Determining the jurisdiction of the court is necessary to commence any legal proceedings. On 16.09.2020 the Bench lead by Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian gave a judgment regarding jurisdiction to try the offense if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account. This decree passed has enunciated about the conflicts regarding jurisdiction.

Facts of the case

A transfer of petition was filed by the petitioner under Sec 406 of criminal code of procedure seeking transfer of proceedings filed by the respondent under Sec 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. The transfer of petition was from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra, Uttar Pradesh to the competent court at Siliguri, Darjeeling, West Bengal.

Contentions of the petitioner

The counsel of the petitioner sought for transfer of the case on the following contentions:
• Under the delivery challan, all disputes between the parties are made subject to the jurisdiction of courts in Siliguri, West Bengal.
• The petitioners have already lodged a criminal complaint about the offenses committed by the respondent and during the pendency of the criminal complaint, the present proceedings have been initiated.
• When the respondent has its Head Office in Siliguri there was no reason to lodge a complaint at Agra except to harass the petitioners.

Judgment

The Hon’ble court made certain observations regarding the contentions made by the petitions, thus gave a judgment as follows;
i. The first contention was dismissed stating that the petitioner could have raised the argument for a bar of jurisdiction of other courts before the Agra Court. It held that this argument cannot be a ground for seeking transfer of petition.
ii. The matter that the petitioner had already filed a criminal complaint against the respondent regarding the poor quality of feed supplied to the petitioner cannot be considered as a ground for transfer.
iii. The contention made by the petitioner regarding harassment by the respondent is unsustainable as the respondent can file a case the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated, under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act,
Thus the petition was disposed off by the court stating that the reasons given by the petitioner are unsustainable and cannot be a ground for seeking transfer from the Court of Agra Uttar Pradesh to the court of Siliguri, West Bengal.

Conclusion

The decision made by the Supreme Court of India had enunciated clearly regarding the jurisdiction of the courts regarding jurisdiction of cases under the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. The applicability of Sec 142( 2) (a) is unambiguous thus the decision made by the Hon’ble Judge is justifiable and apt.

The post Dilemma of jurisdiction under Negotiable Instruments Act appeared first on LexForti .

In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2020)

Introduction

In March 2020 Indian government had announced a lockdown due to the rapid spread of the Coronavirus or Covid- 19. This had caused a halt in the functioning of the whole country. All the sectors of the economy faced a huge difficulty, so did the judiciary. In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2020) considering the current pandemic situation, the Supreme Court of India passed a suo moto order stating that lawyers and litigants who are facing problems regarding the physically filing procedures in respective Courts/tribunals do not have to go to the courts to do so. It also ordered that all periods of limitation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act be extended and also provided directions regarding the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 from 15.03.2020 till further orders were passed in the present proceeding.

Background

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Indian constitution as many lawyers and litigators faced difficulty regarding the filing of the procedures during the lockdown and couldn’t adhere to the limitations stated by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and also limitations regarding serving of summons, notice, and exchange of pleadings and documents.

Judgement

1. The Supreme Court passed an order extending all periods of limitation that were prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It also sought some temporary minor changes in the aforesaid order which are:
   1. Section 29 (A) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 did not prescribe any period of limitation but it fixed a time to do certain acts such as making an arbitral award within a specific time. So the order directed that an extension of the limitation period will be granted.
   2. It also directed that the extension be applied in Section 23(4) of the Act aforementioned.

2. Sec 12 (A) of Commercial Courts Act 2015 dealing with prescribed time limit for completing the process of compulsory pre-institution of mediation and settlement also got an extension from the time lockdown is lifted plus 45 days thereafter.
3. The order also stated that; service of notice, summons, and exchange of pleading/ documents are necessary for legal proceeding thus it directed that alternative virtual methods be used such as e-mail, FAX, commonly used instant messaging services like WhatsApp Telegram, etc.
4. Regarding the extension validity of a cheque the Bench stated that even though the time period is not prescribed by the Statutes but also a period is prescribed by RBI under Sec 35 A of Banking Regulation Act 1949, the court didn’t find it appropriate to interfere with the prescribed limitation period. It advised that RBI may in its discretion alter the period accordingly.

Critical Analysis

1. The extension provided by this order passed by the Bench of Supreme court adheres to the current situation of a pandemic. It provided relief extensively.
2. As it is a temporary relief it won’t affect the procedure once the lockdown ends. It has clearly mentioned that the extension of limitation is till the end of the lockdown.
3. As social distancing and lockdown are instituted in India it becomes difficult to physically file for proceeding of the case and to serve notice, summons, and pleading/ documents. This order has made it easier by stating that these procedures can be done by using alternative virtual methods. Although it has lessened the burden of the lawyers and litigators it has a major drawback. There are chances that the documents that are submitted are forged or edited thus questioning the authenticity and validity of the document.
4. During the pandemic many people lost their business thus making it difficult to make profits. As there is no extension given for the validity of cheques many businessmen will become defaulters as they won’t be having enough funds for repayment.

Conclusion

The decree passed by the Bench has proven to be one of the important decisions as it has invoked its power considering the ongoing pandemic faced by the public and the judiciary at large. This decision will help smooth functioning of proceedings, as possible alternatives are suggested by the Hon’ble court. The extensions provided by the decree will aid those people who are in dire need of this relief thus reducing the burden on them. 

The post Extension of Limitation in Pandemic appeared first on LexForti .