Navbharat Aluminium Bhandar through Its Proprietor Madanlal… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

Navbharat Aluminium Bhandar through Its Proprietor Madanlal… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether interference was called for with the orders dated 07.02.2020 of the learned Additional CJM, Ahmednagar returning the applicant's Section 138 complaints (SCC Nos.3144/2015 and 3330/2015) for presentation before proper Courts within 30 days. +1 more

Court's answer

As the first ground, the applicant was found not interested in the matter, having taken his papers and ceased responding to his advocate.

Ratio / Principle

On merits, the Court agreed with the submissions of the respondents' advocate that, in view of Section 142(2)(a) and the explanation thereto, the learned JMFC which passed the impugned orders had no jurisdiction to try the Section 138 cases, and held that the learned JMFC rightly passed the impugned orders returning the complaints.

Key takeaways

No interference was called for in the impugned orders; consequently both Criminal Applications Nos. 811 and 810 of 2020 were dismissed.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J., 19 November 2025 (2025:BHC-AUG:31749): dismissed Criminal Applications Nos. 811 and 810 of 2020 filed by Navbharat Aluminium Bhandar (through proprietor Madanlal Pannalal Oswal) challenging the orders dated 07.02.2020 of the learned Additional CJM, Ahmednagar in SCC Nos.3144/2015 and 3330/2015, whereby its two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were returned for presentation before proper Courts within 30 days. The applicant had taken his papers and was not responding to his advocate. On merits, the Court agreed with the respondents' counsel that, per Section 142(2)(a) and the explanation thereto — relying on Prakash Chimanlal Sheth vs. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat, AIR 2025 SC 3456 and Bridgstone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75 — jurisdiction for initiating Section 138 proceedings vests inter alia in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the cheque was delivered for collection through the branch where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account; hence the learned JMFC had no jurisdiction and rightly returned the complaints. No interference was called for; both applications dismissed.

2025:BHC-AUG:31749

1 927appln811a810o20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 811 OF 2020

NAVBHARAT ALUMINIUM BHANDAR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MADANLAL PANNALAL OSWAL

VERSUS

SHRI PARSHAV TIN CONTAINERS REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, DHULE AND OTHERS

AND

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 810 OF 2020

NAVBHARAT ALUMINIUM BHANDAR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MADANLAL PANNALAL OSWAL VERSUS

SHRI PARSHAV TIN CONTAINERS REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, DHULE AND OTHERS

Shri Rahul R. Awhad, Advocate h/f Shri N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for the Applicants.

Shri Hrishikesh V. Tungar), Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

DATE : 19 November 2025

P. C. :-

Heard.

The applicant is challenging the orders dated

07.02.2020 passed by learned Additional CJM, Ahmednagar, in

SCC Nos.3144/2015 and 3330/2015. These complaints are filed

2 927appln811a810o20

by the applicant / complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By the impugned orders, the complaints have been returned to the applicant for their presentation before appropriate Court. It was directed that the applicant/ complainant shall present the complaints before proper Courts within 30 days.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has taken papers and is not responding. Therefore, appropriate order may be passed.

Learned advocate for the respondents has opposed the applications and submitted that in view of Section 142(2)(a) and explanation there below, it is clear that learned JMFC, which has passed the impugned orders, has no jurisdiction to try the case and, therefore, the complaints were rightly returned to the complainant for presentation to proper Court. Learned advocate has, therefore, supported the impugned orders. In support of his submissions, learned advocate has relied upon the judgments delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chimanlal

Sheth vs. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat, AIR 2025 SC 3456 and Bridgstone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75

3 927appln811a810o20

wherein, it has been observed that Section 142(2)(a) vests jurisdiction for initiating the proceedings under Section 138 inter alia in territorial jurisdiction of the Court, where the cheque is delivered for collection (through an account of the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account).

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, firstly, the applicant is not interested in the matter since he is not responding to his advocate. Secondly, on merits, considering the provisions of law, I am in complete agreement with the submissions advanced by learned advocate for the respondents. Learned JMFC has rightly passed the impugned orders. No interference is called for in the same. Hence, both these Applications are dismissed.

kps