Alternative (Optional) Jurisdiction of a Court of a Place Where the Paying Bank is Located in Claims Relating to Cheques: Critical Analysis of a Binding Judgment of the Supreme Court

I




n commercial claims and cases relating to movable property arising out of contracts, the legislator, in addition to the
promotion. For this purpose, an institution with the name of the 
jurisdiction of a court located in the domicile of the defendant, has recognized the jurisdiction of two other courts: the court of a place where the contract is made, and the court of a place where the contract is to be performed. For a long time, there has been a clear disagreement among courts of this country as to whether this provision can be applied in claims relating to cheques. The General Board of the Supreme Court (consisting of all supreme court judges, whose decision is binding on all law courts), in a recent judgement, held, with majority, that a claim relating to a cheque is also subject to this provision; and the holder of a cheque, in addition to the court of a territory where the defendant has his domicile, can bring his claim in a court of a place where the cheque has been issued, or in a court of a place where the paying bank is located.
     This short article presents a critical analysis of this judgment of the Supreme Court, and tends to this finding that a claim relating to a cheque could not necessarily be regarded as a commercial case or a contractual claim, and thus it could not be subjected to what has been provided for in the second limp of Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Act 2000. It is, therefore, not easy to accept this judgment as a general rule, and reconcile it with the general rules of jurisdiction in the Civil Procedure Act 2000.