# M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 328
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-03-06
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-shri-sendhur-agro-oil-industries-v-kotak-mahindra-bank-ltd-38348
- **Pages:** 65

## Headnote

Issue arose whether a complaint filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, can be ordered to be transferred from one court
to the other having territorial jurisdiction to try the offence in
exercise of powers u/s.406 CrPC on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction of the court in which the complaint is filed; and whether
the expression "that for the ends of justice, this Court can transfer
any criminal case or appeal to any place" in s.406 CrPC embraces
in itself the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the
offence u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.406 - Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - ss.138, 142, 142A - Transfer of
criminal case by Supreme Court - Petitioner-proprietorship
concern defaulted on payment of its EMI's of overdraft availed
from respondent bank - Respondent instituted proceedings
in Chandigarh, where it had presented the cheque that was
dishonoured - Case of the petitioner that court in Chandigarh
has no jurisdiction as the entire transaction took place in
Tamil Nadu, and proceedings are initiated solely with an intent
to harass the petitioner to travel all the way to Chandigarh
only to attend the court proceedings - Petitioner initiated
transfer proceedings u/s.406 to transfer the proceedings from
Chandigarh to Chennai:
Held: No case made out for transfer of the proceedings u/s.406 -
For the purpose of transfer of any case or proceedings u/s.406, the
case must fall within the ambit of the expression "expedient for the
ends of justice" - Mere inconvenience or hardship that the accused
may have to face in travelling from Coimbatore to Chandigarh
would not fall within the expression "expedient for the ends of
justice" - Transfer of cases u/s.406 Cr.P.C. may be allowed when
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
715
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
there is a reasonable apprehension backed by evidence that justice
may not be done and mere convenience or inconvenience of the
parties may not by itself be sufficient enough to pray for transfer -
Court has to appropriately balance the grounds raised in the facts
and circumstances of each case and exercise its discretion in a
circumspect manner while ordering a transfer u/s.406 - No rigid
and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or
not the power u/s.406 should be exercised - An order of transfer of
trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine and more particularly
on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the
offence u/s.138 NI Act - This power has to be exercised cautiously
and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so
to provide credibility to the trial - When a complainant institutes a
case in a court of his choosing and such a court has the territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter then the transfer of such case
has to be guided by principles that would achieve the ends of
justice - Meaning of "ends of justice" essentially refers to justice
for all the parties involved in the litigation - It is clear on a reading
of s.142(2)(a) and the Explanation thereto that the court of the
place where such cheque was presented for collection, will have
the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint alleging the commission
of offence punishable u/s.138 - Word 'delivered' used in s.142(2)(a)
NI Act has no significance, whereas the expression 'for collection
through an account' is significant - Delivery of the cheque takes
place where the cheque was issued and presentation of the
cheque will be through the account of the payee or holder in due
course, and the said place is decisive to determine the question
of jurisdiction. [Paras 47, 49, 54, 55, 62, 65, 66]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss.138, 142, 142A - Cause
of action - Meaning. [Para 56]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,569 of 134,889. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39569 for what follows._

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 714 : 2025 INSC 328
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries
v.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
(Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 608 of 2024)
06 March 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether a complaint filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, can be ordered to be transferred from one court
to the other having territorial jurisdiction to try the offence in
exercise of powers u/s.406 CrPC on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction of the court in which the complaint is filed; and whether
the expression "that for the ends of justice, this Court can transfer
any criminal case or appeal to any place" in s.406 CrPC embraces
in itself the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the
offence u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.406 - Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - ss.138, 142, 142A - Transfer of
criminal case by Supreme Court - Petitioner-proprietorship
concern defaulted on payment of its EMI's of overdraft availed
from respondent bank - Respondent instituted proceedings
in Chandigarh, where it had presented the cheque that was
dishonoured - Case of the petitioner that court in Chandigarh
has no jurisdiction as the entire transaction took place in
Tamil Nadu, and proceedings are initiated solely with an intent
to harass the petitioner to travel all the way to Chandigarh
only to attend the court proceedings - Petitioner initiated
transfer proceedings u/s.406 to transfer the proceedings from
Chandigarh to Chennai:
Held: No case made out for transfer of the proceedings u/s.406 -
For the purpose of transfer of any case or proceedings u/s.406, the
case must fall within the ambit of the expression "expedient for the
ends of justice" - Mere inconvenience or hardship that the accused
may have to face in travelling from Coimbatore to Chandigarh
would not fall within the expression "expedient for the ends of
justice" - Transfer of cases u/s.406 Cr.P.C. may be allowed when
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
715
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
there is a reasonable apprehension backed by evidence that justice
may not be done and mere convenience or inconvenience of the
parties may not by itself be sufficient enough to pray for transfer -
Court has to appropriately balance the grounds raised in the facts
and circumstances of each case and exercise its discretion in a
circumspect manner while ordering a transfer u/s.406 - No rigid
and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or
not the power u/s.406 should be exercised - An order of transfer of
trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine and more particularly
on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the
offence u/s.138 NI Act - This power has to be exercised cautiously
and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so
to provide credibility to the trial - When a complainant institutes a
case in a court of his choosing and such a court has the territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter then the transfer of such case
has to be guided by principles that would achieve the ends of
justice - Meaning of "ends of justice" essentially refers to justice
for all the parties involved in the litigation - It is clear on a reading
of s.142(2)(a) and the Explanation thereto that the court of the
place where such cheque was presented for collection, will have
the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint alleging the commission
of offence punishable u/s.138 - Word 'delivered' used in s.142(2)(a)
NI Act has no significance, whereas the expression 'for collection
through an account' is significant - Delivery of the cheque takes
place where the cheque was issued and presentation of the
cheque will be through the account of the payee or holder in due
course, and the said place is decisive to determine the question
of jurisdiction. [Paras 47, 49, 54, 55, 62, 65, 66]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss.138, 142, 142A - Cause
of action - Meaning. [Para 56]
Case Law Cited
Yogesh Upadhaya and Another v. Atlanta Limited [2023] 2 SCR 511 :
2023 SCC OnLine SC 170; K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan
Balan [1999] Supp. 3 SCR 271 : (1999) 7 SCC 510; Dashrath
Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [2014] 11 SCR 921 :
(2014) 9 SCC 129; Bridgestone India Private Limited v. Inderpal
Singh [2015] 14 SCR 153 : (2016) 2 SCC 75; A.E. Premanand v.
Escorts Finance Ltd. (2004) 13 SCC 52; Kaushik Chatterjee v.
State of Haryana and Ors. [2020] 9 SCR 311 : (2020) 10 SCC 92;
Bhiaru Ram & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation& Ors. [2010]
9 SCR 554 : (2010) 7 SCC 799; Rajkumar Sabu v. Sabu Trade
716
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Private Limited [2021] 7 SCR 1 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 378;
Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2010] 13 SCR
851 : (2011) 1 SCC 307; Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal
[2009] 9 SCR 194 : (2009) 6 SCC 260; Maneka Sanjay Gandhi
v. Rani Jethmalani [1979] 2 SCR 378 : (1979) 4 SCC 167; Yakub
Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 15 SCR 1 :
(2013) 13 SCC 1; Mahadev Govind Gharge v. LAO [2011] 8 SCR
829 : (2011) 6 SCC 321; State of Madras v. C.P. Agencies, AIR
1960 SC 1309 - referred to.
Mst. Chand Kour v. Pratab Singh, 15 Indian Appeals 156; State
of Madhya Pradesh v. K.P. Ghiara, 1956 SCC OnLine SC 85;
Refex Energy Ltd. v. Union of India 2019 SCC Online Mad
9941 - referred to.
United States v. National City Lines, 337 U.S. 78 - referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
List of Keywords
Transfer of proceedings; Transfer of criminal cases by Supreme
Court; Transfer of civil cases; Dishonour of cheque; Overdraft facility;
Inconvenience to petitioner; Language barrier; Debt Recovery
Tribunal; Expedient for the ends of justice; Transfer from one court
to the other having territorial jurisdiction to try the offence; Lack of
territorial jurisdiction; Transfer any criminal case or appeal to any
place; Transfer of trial; Place where cheque was presented for
collection; Word delivered used in s.142(2)(a) NI Act; Expression
'for collection through an account'; Cause of action.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.
608 of 2024
Petition Filed Under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
With
T.P. (Crl.) No(s). 670, 761, 662, 977 And 850 of 2024
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
717
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Kaushal Kishore, C. Solomon, Bikash Chandra,
Amit Pratap Shaunak, Jitendra Kumar Sah, Zulfiqar Ali Khan,
Chetan Bairwa, Mohd Israr Khan, Ms. D Durga Devi, Ms. Siddhi
Gupta, Pranab Prakash.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sonia Dube, Ms. Kanchan Yadav,
Tanishq Sharma, Ms. Chetna Bisht, Ms. Saumya Sharma,
Ms. Jasleen Virk, For M/s. Legal Options.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1.
Since the issues raised in all the captioned transfer petitions are the
same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being
disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2.
For the sake of convenience, the Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.
608 of 2024 is treated as the lead matter.
3.
This transfer petition filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C.") is at the instance of a
proprietary concern through its proprietor with a prayer to transfer
Criminal Case No. 4016 of 2021 titled as Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited v. M/s Shri Sendhur Agro and Oil Industries pending in the
court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh (UT) to the court
of Metropolitan Magistrate, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, essentially on
the ground that no cause of action could be said to have arose for
the bank to lodge the complaint for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the
N.I. Act) in Chandigarh.
4.
In the memorandum of the transfer petition the following has been
pleaded:
"That the Petitioner herein seeks the transfer to Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu on the following
grounds:
718
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(a) Because in the facts and circumstance of the present
case, the transaction between the Petitioner and the
Respondent wholly happened in Coimbatore and the Courts
in Coimbatore alone will have the jurisdiction to entertain
the present criminal complaint. The Petitioner holds a
savings Account in the Respondent's Coimbatore Branch
and the loan was also processed in the same branch.
All the previous EMI were also deducted from her Bank
Account in Coimbatore and credited to the loan account
maintained in the Coimbatore Branch. Therefore, the
Court in Chandigarh will have no jurisdiction to entertain
the present Criminal Complaint.
(b) Because in the facts and circumstances of the Instant/
case, under Sec. 142 of the Act the Court within whose
jurisdiction the Bank where the Cheque, is presented for
collection or where the Cheque is presented for payment
alone has the Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under
Sec.138 of the Act. Whereas the present Complaint does
not satisfy any of the conditions under the Sec.142.
(c) Because in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, there are already pending proceedings between
the Petitioner and the Respondent in Coimbatore and the
Respondent has purposefully filed the present proceedings
in Ahmedabad only to harass the Petitioner with multiple
proceedings in different States.
(d) Because in the facts and circumstances of the instant
case the Court in Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain
the criminal complaint as the Respondent's headquarters in
Mumbai and it's the branch office in Coimbatore had solely
processed the loan of the Petitioner. Hence the Court in
Chandigarh where no cause of action arose will not have
the jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings.
(e) Because in the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, the Petitioner had opted to repay the EMI through
automatic deduction facility and the same gets credited
automatically into the loan account maintained by the
Branch office in Chennai. The automatic deduction for the
EMI is not branch specific. Therefore, the same does not
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
719
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
satisfy the conditions under Sec. 142 for filing the complaint
under Sec. 138 of the Act in Ahmedabad.
(f) Because in the present circumstances the present
proceedings are initiated solely with an intent to harass
the Petitioner to travel all the way to Chandigarh from
Kangeyum only to attend the court proceedings. The
Petitioner has been harassed by the Respondent for
over 5 years by using anti-social elements therefore the
Petitioner fears his safety to travel alone to Chandigarh
to attend the proceedings.
(g) Because in the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, the Petitioner doesn't Know anyone in Chandigarh
and does not even know the local language to effectively
defend himself in the criminal proceedings initiated by the
Respondent.
(h) Because in the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, the Respondent Bank has already initiated Sarfaesi
proceedings for the recovery of entire loan amount. The
Respondent and its employees have colluded and sold the
properties of the Petitioner without any information. The
Petitioner has already filed appropriate proceedings against
the Respondent in Coimbatore. In the said circumstances,
the Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is abuse of process of law."
ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT
5.
On 22nd July 2024, this Court passed the following order:
"Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner concern is engaged
in the business of producing coconut oil, selling coconut
oil and its byproducts and is situated at Coimbatore; that
the petitioner availed over-draft limits and terms from the
respondent-Bank at its R.S. Puram branch at Coimbatore;
that a loan was granted against the equitable mortgage
of properties located at Coimbatore and the money was
also disbursed at Coimbatore. The learned senior counsel
submits that only for the presentation of the cheque
720
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the Bank has proceeded to Chandigarh. Issue notice,
returnable in four weeks. In the meantime, there shall be
stay of further proceedings in Complaint Case No.4016
of 2021 titled as "Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Shri
Sendhur Agro and Oil Industries", pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, UT, Chandigarh."
6.
Thereafter, on 29th November 2024, the following order was passed:
"1. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent -
Bank prays for a short adjournment to seek appropriate
instructions in the matters.
2. Prima facie, it appears that the entire transaction had
taken place in Coimbatore, State of Tamil Nadu. However,
the Bank seems to have filed complaints under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Chandigarh.
3. The bank owes an explanation why it thought fit to file
complaints in Chandigarh and not in Coimbatore, Tamil
Nadu.
4. Post these matters on 6-12-2024."
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
7.
The written submissions of the petitioner read as under:
"A. The scope of powers under Section 406 CrPC, 1973
(akin to Section 527 of CrPC, 1898 and Section 447
of BNSS, 2024) is the question which concerns this
Hon'ble Court.
B.
One aspect of exercise of power of transfer is
the introduction of Section 142A in the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 by Amending Act 26 of 2015,
which has retrospective effect. Clause (2) of Section
142A contemplates a situation where cases against
the same drawer ought to be filed in the same Court
where the first case pertaining to dishonor of cheque
is filed or "transferred". Independent of the fact that
the interpretation of this provision is being considered
by this Hon'ble Court in Kedar Bhausaheb Malhari vs.
Axis Bank Ltd. [TP (Crl.) 33 of 2018] where the Court
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
721
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
has impleaded the Union of India, taken assistance of
an amicus curie and also requested the Ld. Attorney
General to appear, the Petitioner submits that in
certain scenarios, power of transfer under Section
406 CrPC should be exercised to transfer Section
138 Negotiable Instruments Act cases.
C.
The Petitioner submits that the invocation of power of
transfer presupposes the existence of jurisdiction. A
case which is filed in a court without jurisdiction should
be subjected to a quashing petition and therefore
as a matter of principle, the power of transfer under
Section 406 CrPC is not sought on the ground that
the court from which transfer is sought does not have
jurisdiction. The expression which is used in all the
three codes is "expedient for the ends of justice"
and it is this expression alone which is sought to be
invoked by the Petitioner.
D.
The undisputed facts from Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.
608 of 2024 may kindly be noticed. Some of these
facts are recorded in the order issuing notice dated
22.07.2024 -
(a) The Petitioner is a proprietorship concern which
deals with production and distribution of coconut oil
and its by-products.
(b) The Petitioner firm had taken overdraft facility
from the Respondent Bank vide sanction letter dated
19.03.2015 (pg. 6 of Crl. MP No. 155078 of 2024). This
was extended till 2078. The Bank's correspondence
address was recorded therein as Egmore, Chennai
branch and had nothing to do with Chandigarh.
(c) For this overdraft facility, several collaterals in
the form of land were taken apart from a lien which
was created on a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs. The
11 properties which were taken as collateral are all
lands located in the area of Kangeyam in Tiruppur
district (bifurcated from the erstwhile Coimbatore
district) of Tamil Nadu.
722
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(d) The sanction letter also required the Petitioner
borrower to repay from his HDFC Bank account
situated in the Kangeyam branch.
(e) It is pleaded by the Petitioner at pg 3 that all
procedures for availing the overdraft facility were
done in the Coimbatore branch.
(f) It is further pleaded that the blank cheques of Kotak
Mahindra Bank, Tiruppur were given as surety and
all the EMI's were to be made through ECS facility.
(g) The Petitioner has also pleaded that there are no
other transactions that the Petitioner has with any
other branch of the Respondent Bank.
(h) The Petitioner defaulted on payments of its EMIs
in the year 2018 which resulted in a demand notice
under the SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs. 2.74 crores.
The consequential sale notices and the sale of the
Petitioner's assets also took place in Coimbatore.
(i) The Respondent vide. Its letter dated 05.10.2018
had also informed the Petitioner that his Account
would be declared as NPA in next two days.
(j) The Petitioner challenged the SARFAESI
proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at
Coimbatore (Annexure P-2, pg. 28 onwards).
E.
Despite all these aforesaid transactions taking place
within the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu, the Respondent
Bank chose to present the cheque for Rs. 21 lakhs at
Chandigarh. The complaint is annexed at Annexure
P-1 (pg. 13 onwards) and shows the address of the
Petitioner to be in Tamil Nadu. The complaint does
not refer to several of the aforementioned undisputed
facts. This complaint is dated 21.04.2021 and is
numbered as CIS No. NACT/4016/2021, while the
summons on this have been issued by the Court
of Ld. CJM, Chandigarh only on 30.04.2024. This
factor of issuance of summons after 3 years of delay
also indicates that the complaint was filed and kept
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
723
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
in the Registry only to be used at the whim of the
Respondent Bank.
F.
In the aforesaid background, the Petitioner is
requesting this Court to exercise its power of transfer
on the anvil of "expedient for the ends of justice".
The following parameters and precedents may be
considered -
i. This Hon'ble Court on 29.11.2024 had called upon
the Respondent Bank to explain the reason for
choosing the jurisdiction of Chandigarh even though
the entire transaction had taken place in Coimbatore.
There is, however, no explanation that has been given
till date. The only response in the Counter Affidavit
filed is in paragraph 5 which records that the Bank's
collection account is located in Chandigarh. This stand
of the Bank might justify the existence of jurisdiction
at Chandigarh but does not answer/explain the reason
for filing a complaint there, especially when one set
of legal proceedings viz. under SARFAESI Act were
undertaken within the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu.
ii. As submitted earlier, this is not an issue pertaining to
territorial jurisdiction or an issue of convenience of the
accused, but having undertaken all the proceedings
including initiation of one set of litigation within Tamil
Nadu, it is unjust for the Respondent Bank to choose
an unrelated jurisdiction merely because it has an
option of more than one places where a complaint
can be lodged.
iii. The parameters of 'expedient for the ends of
justice' should take into account a situation where
availability of more than one jurisdiction is misused
for no extra benefit to the Complainant.
iv. The legislative intent of Section 142A also
contemplates that holder in due course is not allowed
to misuse the availability of multiple jurisdictions and
therefore have consciously used the expression
'transfer' along with 'filed' in Section 142A(2).
724
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
v. This Hon'ble Court recently in Navapavithra G &
Ors. vs. M/s Cholamandalam Investment & Finance
Co. Ltd. [TP (Crl] No.441 of 2024] in its order dated
24.10.2024 had held that financial institutions should
avoid filing proceedings in various states merely
because they have offices there, and should file
proceedings in courts having jurisdiction where the
actual transaction has taken place and where the
cause of action has arisen
vi. Further, this Hon'ble Court in M/s Oasis Marine
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd. [TP (Crl.)
No. 323-325 of 2023] in order dated 08.11.2024 and
in Blue Line Entertainment Media Ltd. vs. Kotak
Mahindra Bank Ltd. [TP (Crl.) No. 224 of 2020] in
order dated 31.10.2022 has allowed similar petitions
where the Respondent had instituted other recovery
proceedings in a different jurisdiction. The Petitioner
submits that they are identically situated.
vii. Moreover, this Hon'ble Court in several cases
has allowed transfer petitions when multiple Section
138 NI Act complaint cases are pending against
a drawer in different locations. For instance, in Sri
Lakshmi Agencies v. Rallis India Ltd., (2006) 13
SCC 312, transfer petition was allowed considering
the convenience of the parties and the fact that the
Respondent company was a multinational company
with offices all over India. Some other similar cases
are A.E. Premanand v. Escorts Finance Ltd., (2004) 13
SCC 527; Global Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd. v.
G.K. Builders, (2005) 12 SCC 427; Vikram Tractors v.
Escorts Ltd., (2005) 10 SCC 80; Videocon International
Ltd. v. Sujana Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 125.
The Petitioner submits that the same principle is
applicable here, since two separate prosecutions
relating to the same transaction are being undertaken
in different jurisdictions against him.
viii. In BR Gupta & Anr. vs. Rohit Jain, (2007) 7 SCC
454, this Hon'ble Court exercised its power under
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
725
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Section 406 CrPC since the Petitioner therein was
being subjected to a Section 138 NI Act complaint
case as well as an FIR for cheating and forgery
relating to the same transaction, in two different
jurisdictions.
ix. A 3-judge bench of this Hon'ble Court in Harman
Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India (P)
Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 720, para 21 had also noted that -
"We cannot, as things stand today, be oblivious of the
fact that a banking institution holding several cheques
signed by the same borrower can not only present
the cheque for its encashment at four different places
but also may serve notices from four different places
so as to enable it to file four complaint cases at four
different places. This only causes grave harassment
to the accused. It is, therefore, necessary in a case
of this nature to strike a balance between the right of
the complainant and the right of an accused vis-a-vis
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
x. For interpreting the phrase "expedient for the
ends of justice", it is worthwhile to mention this
Hon'ble Court's interpretation of the phrase "justice,
equality and good conscience". In M. Siddiq (Ram
Janambhumi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1
SCC 1, this Hon'ble Court traced the origins of the
phrase in Roman law. Paragraphs 1000 - 1022 deal
with the origin of this phrase and broadly refers to
a situation where adherence to written law leads to
"Unjust Outcome" (Paragraph 1001). It is this principle,
in most humble submission of the Petitioner, which
ought to be the basis for Section 406 Petitions.
xi. The other factors which this Hon'ble Court
has considered towards ends of justice is not the
convenience of the accused but the convenience of
possible witnesses, the cost to be incurred by both
the prosecution and the defence witness to travel a
long way, the language in which the proceedings will
be undertaken, etc.
726
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
G.
The following set of judgments may be considered
in addition to the abovementionedi. The proposition that the power under Section 406
would not be ever used for the convenience of the
accused is too broad and defeats the expression in
Section 406, i.e. 'expedient for the ends of justice'.
This proposition has been used in cases where this
Hon'ble Court has held that it is not the convenience
of a single accused, rather the convenience of the
other accused (if any), the witnesses, the prosecution
and the larger interest of the society needs to be
cumulatively seen - held in Abdul Nazar Madani vs.
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 204, para
7 - followed in Nahar Singh Yadau vs. Union of India,
(2011) 1 SCC 307; Mrudul M Damle & Anr. s. CBI,
(2012) 5 SCC 706; Harita Sunil Parab vs. State of
NCT of Delhi, (2018) 6 SCC 358. In Sri Jayendra
Saraswathy vs. State of TN & Ors, (2005) 8 SCC
771, para 25, apart from the above consideration
of convenience, this Hon'ble Court also took into
account the language in which the proceedings will
take place, and the witnesses will testify in before
allowing the transfer petition.
ii. There are judgments on Section 138 NI Act in
which Transfer Petitions have been dismissed, like
Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana. & Ors.,
(2020) 10 SCC 99. However, these are cases where
the respective Petitioners argued the issue of territorial
jurisdiction.
iii. This Hon'ble Court has dealt with various stages
of development of law of jurisdiction under NI Act in
Yogesh Upadhyay & Anr. as. Atlanta Ltd., 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 170, paras 5-13. This is cited to indicate
a recent decision on how general jurisdiction under
Section 138 NI Act has been viewed by this Hon'ble
Court."
8.
In such circumstances referred to above the petitioner prayed that
there being merit in his transfer petition the same may be allowed
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
727
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
and the proceedings be transferred from the UT of Chandigarh to
the State of Tamil Nadu.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
BANK:
9.
The written submissions filed by the respondent Bank read as under:
"A. It is submitted that the Respondent is Banking
company within the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. On
the basis of representations made by the petitioner, the
respondent extended credit facilities to the petitioner and
its group companies. The petitioners however defaulted
on repayments and as of July 2022, owed a sum of more
than Rs. 34.14 Cr. to the Respondent.
B. The Respondent Bank filed a Complaint under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred
to as 'the said Act') in accordance with law before the
competent court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the
bank where the payee maintains the account is situated.
In this regard it is submitted the Cheque was presented
at Respondent's Chandigarh Branch for the reason that
the routing/collection account in respect of the subject
cheque (in a NPA account) was located at Chandigarh.
C. Significantly, the petitioner has in its written submissions
clarified that it is not disputing the jurisdiction of the court
where the complaint was filed. In fact, it is the petitioner's
contention that the filing of the transfer petitions (as
opposed to a quashing petition) pre-supposes the existence
of jurisdiction of the court from where the proceedings are
sought to be transferred.
D. Section 142 A of the Negotiable Instrument Act stipulates
the conditions when the Complaint filed under Section 138
may be transferred. The object of the provision is that all
the complaint cases arising out of one transaction should
be tried at one place. In the present cases as well as
the connected cases, the Respondent has filed cases at
Chandigarh only; thus, no ground under Section 142 A to
seek transfer arises.
728
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
E. The transfer petitions are not supported by any sufficient
grounds It is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioner
has sought transfer only on the general grounds viz the
distance and the difference in language. The Petitioner has
not pleaded (i) any specific problem or health issue which
would make it difficult for him to attend the proceedings
at Chandigarh (ii)any miscarriage of justice that may
happen if the proceedings are continued at Chandigarh
(iii) difficulty in understanding English language which
is uniformly used in all the courts. It is most respectfully
submitted that powers under Section 406 of the CrPC to
transfer cases may be exercised only when such transfer
is expedient for the ends of justice. This Hon'ble Court has
consistently held that the powers under Section 406 of
the CrPC are discretionary powers and ought to be used
sparingly. In Bhiaru Ram Vs. CBI (Transfer Petition (Crl.)
No. 37 of 2009) (judgment and order dated 3.8.2010),
this Hon'ble Court observed that "that for the ends of
justice, this Court can transfer any criminal case or appeal
to any place. In order to transfer a case from one State
to another or from one place to another, there must be
"reasonable apprehension" on the part of the party to a
case that justice may not be done. Mere allegation that
there is apprehension that justice will not be done, cannot
be the basis of transfer."
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has failed to
make-out a case which would warrant exercise of powers
by this Hon'ble Court under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C.
F. It is submitted that the Virtual Facility is available in
courts in Chandigarh and the option to attend the hearing
virtually is always available to the Petitioner. Instead of
approaching Trial Court and moving an application for
exemption therein and satisfying the Trial Court regarding
the necessity of such exemption, the Petitioner has directly
approached this Hon'ble Court.
G. It is submitted that the cheque bouncing cases filed
by the respondent in Chandigarh were prior in time to
the original application filed before the DRT, Coimbatore.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
729
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
H. It is further submitted that there are a batch of cases
pending in Chandigarh. The Respondent has filed all
cases arising out of the transaction at one single place
viz Chandigarh. Thus, no inconvenience could have been
caused to the Petitioner.
I. It is further submitted that there are various cases
pending at Chandigarh District Court arising out the
same transaction in which no Transfer Petition has been
filed. It is submitted that there are 23 cases pending in
Chandigarh out of which the transfer petition has been
filed by the petitioner only in the present batch of cases
and in two more cases. To the best of knowledge of the
respondent, no other transfer petition has been filed in
the other connected cases. A list of the cases pending in
Chandigarh court are annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure -A (Page No. 6 to 7).
J. It is submitted that transfer of some of the cases arising
out of the transaction would be contrary to the object of
the Amendment Act of 2015 and in particular Section 142A
(2) & (3) inserted vide the said amendment.
K. The Respondent seek to put forth the following heads
of submissions alongwith citations in support thereof:-
(a) Complaint case Under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot
be transferred at the convenience of the accused
(i) S. Nalini Jayanthi vs M. Ramasubba Reddy, TP (Crl)
655/2022 (Paragraph 2)
(ii) Kasthuripandian S Vs RBL Bank Limited, TP (Crl)
No.515/2024 (Paragraph 1)
(b) Under Section 142 (2) (a) of the NI Act, the court within
whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee
maintains the account is situated, will have jurisdiction to
try the offence. The ground that when head office was in
Siliguri, the complaint has been filed in Agra to harass the
Petitioner, was held, in the facts of that case, not to be
sufficient ground to seek transfer.
730
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(i) Himalaya Self Farming Group & Ant vs M/s Goyal Feed
Suppliers, TP (Crl) 273/2020 (Paragraph 5)
(c) Mere language factor/convenience of a party is not
enough ground to seek transfer.
(i) Rajkumar Sabu vs Sabu vs Sabu trade private limited,
2021 SCC Online SC 378 (Paragraph 8-10)
(d) Mere convenience of a party is not enough. The
apprehension must be reasonable.
(i) Bhiaru Ram & Ors. vs CBI & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 799
(Paragraph 9 to 15)
(e) Jurisdiction under the Section 406 of the CrPC ought
to be sparingly used.
(i) Nahar Singh Yadav vs UOI & Ors, (2011) 1 SCC 307
(Paragraph 29)"
10. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel
appearing for the Bank prayed that there being no merit in the
transfer petition, the same may be rejected.
ANALYSIS
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record the following questions
fall for our consideration.
i.
Whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
can be ordered to be transferred from one court to the other
in exercise of powers under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. on the
ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the
complaint is filed?
ii.
Assuming that the court in which the complaint filed under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the
same, then is it permissible for this court in exercise of powers
under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. to transfer the said complaint
to the court having territorial jurisdiction to try the offence?
iii.
Whether the expression "that for the ends of justice, this Court
can transfer any criminal case or appeal to any place." in Section
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
731
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
406 Cr.P.C. embraces in itself the lack of territorial jurisdiction
of the court to try the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act?
12. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side,
we must look into a few relevant provisions of the N.I. Act. Section
138 of the N.I. Act reads thus:
"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds
in the account.-
Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account
maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount
of money to another person from out of that account for
the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of
the amount of money standing to the credit of that account
is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds
the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an
agreement made with that bank, such person shall be
deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without
prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to
two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the
amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply
unless-
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a
period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or
within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque,
as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of
the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to
the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt
of information by him from the bank regarding the return
of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment
of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case
may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within
fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice."
732
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
13. What is relevant for our purpose is Section 142 of the N.I. Act. Section
142 relates to the cognizance of offences. Section 142 reads thus:
"142. Cognizance of offences.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-
(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable
under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing,
made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in
due course of the cheque;
(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date
on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the
proviso to section 138: Provided that the cognizance of a
complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed
period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had
sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such
period.
(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or
a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence
punishable under section 138.
(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into
and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction, -
(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an
account, the branch of the bank where the payee or
holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the
account, is situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or
holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the
branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains
the account, is situated."
14. Section 142-A of the N.I. Act provides for validation for transfer of
pending cases. Section 142-A reads thus:
"Validation for transfer of pending cases.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order
or direction of any court, all cases transferred to the court
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
733
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142,
as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred
under this Act, as if that sub-section had been in force at
all material times.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2)
of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or
the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed
a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court
having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142
or the case has been transferred to that court under subsection (1) and such complaint is pending in that court, all
subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against
the same drawer shall be filed before the same court
irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for
collection or presented for payment within the territorial
jurisdiction of that court.
(3) If, on the date of the commencement of the Negotiable
Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, more than one
prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due
course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of
cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said
fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such
court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction
under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the
Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015,
before which the first case was filed and is pending, as if
that sub-section had been in force at all material times."
15. This court in the case of Yogesh Upadhaya and Another v. Atlanta
Limited reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 170 had the occasion
to consider the plea for transfer filed under Section 406 Cr.P.C. in
connection with six complaint cases filed under Section 138 and 142
of the N.I. Act respectively. While considering the plea for transfer,
the court had the opportunity to consider Section 142(2) contained
in the statute book along with Section 142-A.
16. The relevant observations in Yogesh Upadhaya (Supra) read as thus:
" 6. In K. Bhaskaran v.