1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5056/2009. ( Kailash Narhari Udawant -: versus :- Sandeep Sadashivrao Kadu ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2009. Heard Shri K.S. Narwade, learned counsel for petitioner. Suit has been filed by the respondent for recovery of money of a dishonoured cheque at a place where the dishonour took place, which also happens to be place of his residence. Suit was challenged contending that the court had no territorial jurisdiction. The trial court has rejected said contention by a reasoned order. Before me, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that by presenting cheque to a particular bank, respondent / plaintiff cannot confer jurisdiction on the court at the place where the said Bank is situated. He relies upon a judgment reported at 1996 [2] Civil LJ 477 (South East Asia Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vrs. Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.). Facts of said judgment show that contract was entered into between the parties there at Bombay and it was also to be 2 performed at Bombay, for its due performance Bank guarantee was obtained from Delhi and in that background the Hon’ble Apex Court has found that merely because the bank guarantee was obtained from Delhi, that does not confer any jurisdiction on Delhi Court. It is apparent here that cheque was given by present petitioner to respondent and respondent has presented it to a Bank where he was residing. The trial Court has therefore, appropriately dealt with the controversy. No case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.