Hemant Sagrmal Jain Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2026)

Hemant Sagrmal Jain Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of as not pressed (without prejudice), with all rights and contentions reserved; complainant to take the steps undertaken (moving an application before the learned Trial Court for summoning of concerned officials of the erstwhile complainant and of the bank where the cheque was presented); learned Trial Court requested to expedite disposal of the complaint.

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could have been filed in Delhi when the cheque had been presented in Ahmedabad (territorial jurisdiction/maintainability of the complaint).

Court's answer

In view of the respondent Bank's undertaking, and without prejudice to her rights and contentions, the petitioner did not press the petition; it stands disposed of as not pressed with all rights and contentions of the parties reserved, leaving the territorial-jurisdiction question unadjudicated.

Ratio / Principle

The complainant shall take the steps undertaken by its counsel, namely to move an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court seeking summoning of the concerned officials of the erstwhile complainant as well as of the bank where the cheque in question were presented.

Key takeaways

The learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the disposal of the complaint in question, with both sides to render due assistance and cooperation.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J.), CRL.M.C. 4393/2023 (with CRL.M.A. 16826/2023 & CRL.M.A. 21517/2023), decided 15.01.2026: The petitioner, who stood summoned for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, contended that the complaint could not have been filed in Delhi since the cheque had been presented in Ahmedabad. Counsel for respondent Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. — successor to the assets and liabilities of erstwhile complainant ESSEL Finance Business Loans Ltd. — undertook to move an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court seeking summoning of the concerned officials of the erstwhile complainant as well as of the bank where the cheque in question were presented. On that assurance, and expressly without prejudice, the petitioner did not press the petition; it was disposed of as not pressed with all rights and contentions reserved. The complainant was directed to take the steps undertaken, and the learned Trial Court was requested to expedite disposal of the complaint. The territorial-jurisdiction question was left unadjudicated.

$~32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CRL.M.C. 4393/2023 & CRL.M.A. 16826/2023 & CRL.M.A. 21517/2023

HEMANT SAGRMAL JAIN .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocate.

versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Kaushik Mishra with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Shailesh K. Rajora, Advocate for respondent Bank.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

O R D E R % 15.01.2026

The question raised in the present petition is very short and precise.

According to the petitioner, who has been summoned for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint in question could not have been filed in Delhi as the cheque had been presented in Ahmedabad.

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for respondent i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., which has taken over the assets and liabilities of erstwhile complainant i.e. ESSEL Finance Business Loans Ltd., submits that they will move appropriate application before the learned Trial Court seeking summoning of the concerned officials of the earstwhile complainant as well as of the Bank where the cheque in question were presented, to make everything crystal clear on the abovesaid aspect.

CRL.M.C. 4393/2023

1

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 12:11:45

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, on the basis of the abovesaid assurance and, without prejudice to her rights and contentions, does not press the present petition at this juncture. She, however, prays that the learned Trial Court may be requested to expedite the disposal of the complaint in question as the complaint was not maintainable in Delhi.

In view of the abovesaid statement, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed. All rights and contentions are hereby reserved.

Complainant shall take the steps, as undertaken above.

Learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the disposal of the complaint in question. Needless to say, both the sides would render due assistance and cooperation to the learned Trial Court.

MANOJ JAIN, J

JANUARY 15, 2026 st/js

CRL.M.C. 4393/2023

2

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 12:11:45