The case “Kedar Bhausaheb Malhari vs Axis Bank” was heard by the Supreme Court of India and primarily revolved around the jurisdictional issues related to filing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881. This section deals with the dishonour of cheques, and the amendments to the Act have brought into question the correct jurisdiction for filing such cases.

Main Issue Involved in the Case:

The main issue was whether complaints regarding dishonoured cheques under Section 138 could be filed in multiple locations, specifically:

1. The place where the cheque was presented for encashment.

2. The location of the drawee bank.

3. The location of the payee or the drawer of the cheque.

Legal Context:

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that if a cheque is dishonoured due to insufficient funds or other reasons, the drawee has the right to initiate legal action against the drawer.

Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, introduced through an amendment, specifically addresses jurisdictional issues by clarifying where such cases can be filed.

Court Proceedings:

1. Transfer Petition: The petitioner, Kedar Bhausaheb Malhari, sought the transfer of the case to ensure consistent legal interpretation across different jurisdictions, particularly focusing on the consequences of the recent amendments to Section 142A.

2. Involvement of Amicus Curiae: Given the complexity of the jurisdictional issue, the Supreme Court appointed Mr. Siddharth Luthra, a senior advocate, as Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) to assist with the matter. His role was to provide a balanced perspective and help the court navigate the intricate legal questions.

3. Union of India Involvement: Recognizing the broader implications of the decision, the Supreme Court ordered the Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to be included as a party to the proceedings. This step underscores the importance of the case in interpreting national law.

Implications:

Clarification of Jurisdiction: The outcome of this case is expected to clarify where cases under Section 138 should be filed, which is particularly important for businesses and banks operating across multiple jurisdictions.

Impact on Pending Cases: The decision will likely influence many pending cases where jurisdiction has been disputed, potentially leading to a more streamlined and predictable legal process.

Current Status:

The case has been deferred for further hearings after receiving submissions from the involved parties, including the Union of India. The final decision is expected to set a precedent for future cases involving similar jurisdictional disputes under the Negotiable Instruments Act.