Allowed

Falke Shweta Roshan v. Kokan Mercentile Co. Operative Bank Thorugh Its Authorized Officer Rashida Ismail Shaikh and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jun 2017APL/1214/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application transferring a cheque dishonour case from Mazgaon to Ratnagiri. The court held that admitting the loan account was maintained and disbursements made at Ratnagiri, the local branch court retains jurisdiction despite core banking records at the head office.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the transfer application was set aside, and the exhibit for transfer was allowed.

Falke Shweta Roshan Vs Kokan Mercentile Co. Operative Bank… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

26-apl-1214-2015.odt

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1214 OF 2015

¶5

Smt. Falke Shweta Roshan … Applicant vs.

¶6

Kokan Mercentile Co-operative Bank & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

…

¶8

Mr. Sahil Mahajan for the Applicant. Mr. Vikas K. Singh i/b. M/s.Lambay & Co. for the Respondent. Ms. Pallavi Dhabolkar, APP for the State.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

By this application the applicant challenges an order rejecting the application for transfer of the case pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court at Mazgaon to Ratnagiri where admittedly the Loan account of the accused is maintained.

¶11

The application for transfer was made on or about 28th September, 2015 and in support of the application the applicant had relied upon provisions of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 which was brought into force on 15th June, 2015. The complaint appears to be filed in the year 2013 and as a result the appropriate Court before which this application is to be heard and disposed off is the Court where the Loan Account was maintained namely in Ratnagiri Branch of the respondent bank.

¶12

1/2

¶13

26-apl-1214-2015.odt

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order. The only contention raised on behalf of the respondent is that under the core banking system all accounts of all branches are maintained at the head office and therefore it is contention of the respondent bank that the appropriate jurisdiction within which the complaint could be filed would be jurisdiction within the Head Office of the respondent is situated, which is Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Mazgaon.

¶15

Having considered this submission and having perused the provisions of the Ordinance it is not possible to accept the contention of the respondent that the branch at Ratnagiri will not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Admittedly, the loan account is maintained with the Ratnagiri branch. All disbursements have occasioned from Ratnagiri Branch. Part payments have also been made at Ratnagiri branch. Maintaining of the core banking records at the head office will not oust the jurisdiction of the local Court of Ratnagiri. I find no substance in the contention of the respondent-bank. In the circumstances the application for transfer ought to have been allowed.

¶16

Accordingly, I pass the following order :

¶17

(i) The impugned order dated 28th September, 2015 is set aside.

¶18

(ii) Exhibit-111 on the file of the lower Court in C.C.No.1026/SS of 2013 is allowed.

¶19

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶20

2/2

Falke Shweta Roshan v. Kokan Mercentile Co. Operative Bank Thorugh Its Authorized Officer Rashida Ismail Shaikh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Falke Shweta Roshan v. Kokan Mercentile Co. Operative Bank Thorugh Its Authorized Officer Rashida Ismail Shaikh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Vasant Thakkar Vs Shri Sudhir Bodhram Mamdapur and Anr.

Shri Sagar Shripati Bhosale (Kondwal)and Ors. Vs Sou. Priyanka Sagar Bhosale (Kondwal) and Anr.

Rajkumar Chainrai Basantani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant Pandit Salve Vs Suvarna Prashant Salve and Ors.

Amar Vijay Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdulla Ibrahim Aaklekar Vs Ankush Laxman Salve and Ors.