YOGESH UPADHYAY AND ANR. versus ATLANTA LIMITED

YOGESH UPADHYAY AND ANR. versus ATLANTA LIMITED

Notwithstanding the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court's power to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences under Section 138 where transfer is expedient for the ends of justice; Section 142(2)(a) vests territorial jurisdiction where the cheque was delivered for collection, and in the present case the two Nagpur complaints are transferred to Dwarka for common adjudication as they arise from the same transaction.

Parties
Petitioner: Yogesh Upadhyay; Petitioner: M/s. Shakti Buildcon; Respondent: Atlanta Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Transfer Petition (criminal) Under Section 406 Cr.p.c. / Decided by Supreme Court (criminal Original Jurisdiction) by Judgment Dated 21 February 2023
Outcome
Transfer petitions allowed
Legal Topics
Section 138 NI Act, Section 142 NI Act, Section 142(2)(a), Section 142 a, Section 406 Cr.p.c., Transfer of Criminal Cases, Territorial Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Negotiable Instruments Law Procedure Section 138 NI Act Section 142 NI Act Section 142(2)(a) Section 142 a Section 406 Cr.p.c. +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yogesh Upadhyay

Petitioner

M/s. Shakti Buildcon

Petitioner

Atlanta Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Transfer Petition (criminal) Under Section 406 Cr.p.c. / Decided by Supreme Court (criminal Original Jurisdiction) by Judgment Dated 21 February 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court's power under Section 406 Cr.P.C. to transfer criminal cases is ousted by the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding territorial jurisdiction where the cheque is delivered for collection
  3. 3 Whether multiple complaints arising from cheques issued in respect of the same transaction should be tried together to avoid contradictory findings

Ratio Decidendi

Notwithstanding the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court's power to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences under Section 138 where transfer is expedient for the ends of justice; Section 142(2)(a) vests territorial jurisdiction where the cheque was delivered for collection, and in the present case the two Nagpur complaints are transferred to Dwarka for common adjudication as they arise from the same transaction.

Court Disposition

Transfer petitions allowed

Orders

  • SCC Nos.25668/2019 and 26875/2019, both titled 'Atlanta Limited Vs. M/s Shakti Buildcon & Anr.' pending on the files of the learned 22nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur and the learned 20th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, respectively, are transferred to the South West District Courts, Dwarka, New...