[2014] 9 S.C.R. 279

SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES & ORS.

METSO MINERAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

(Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2014)

AUGUST 20, 2014

[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.)

- B

Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction - To entertain complaint u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint filed in the court at Gurgaon (Haryana) - Maintainability of - C Held: The courts at Gurgaon did not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings u/s. 138, because legal notice of demand had emanated from the city of Bangalore - Complaint returned to the complainant for refiling the same in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka - o Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 .

. Respondent-complainant filed petition uls. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court at Gurgaon, Haryana. The complaint related to the dishonor E of the cheque drawn on the Bank at Bangalore and which . was presentedror encashment to another Bank at Bangalore. When the Court at Gurgaon issued summons, the appellant challenged the same before High Court. High Court dismissed the case of the appellant holding that the courts at Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to entertain the complalnt. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Issuance of the notice has relevance to the G question of criminal territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the present case, ' the dishonoured cheques were drawn on the Appellant's

I Bank at Bangalore. Subsequently, on presentation of the

279 H

A cheques for encashment by the Respondent through its Bankers at Bangalore, they were dishonoured. [Para 2]

[281-F-G]

2. The courts at Gurgaon do not possess territorial

8 jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act solely because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a legal notice of demand has emanated from that city. The Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent C for refiling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka. If the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to have been filed within limitation. [Para 4] [282-C-O] .

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra D (2014) 9 SCALE 97 - relied on.

K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an (1999) _ _7 SCC 510: 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271; Harman Electrof:lics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private.Limited E (2009) 1 SCC 720: 2008 (17) SCR 487 - referred to.

Case Law Reference:

(2014) 9 SCALE 97 relied on

1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271 referred to

2008 (17 ) SCR 487 referred to

Para 2

Para 2

Para 2

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2014.

G From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2013 of the

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 32999 of 2010.

Jayant Bhushan, Dhruv Mehta, Madhav Khurana, Diksha

SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES v. METSO MINERALS (INDIA) 281

PVT. LTD.

Rai, G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis Mohd., B.R. Pandey, L.K.

A Pandey, Raghav Chadha, P.V. Yogeswaran, Munawwar Naseem, Sameer Abhayankar, Nitin Khare for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge ofthe High Court of Punjab & Haryana holding that since the notice as contemplated in Section 138 of the Negotiable c Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act'), had been dispatched from Gurgaon, Haryana and additionally, a response thereto was dispatched to and received at Gurgaon, Courts at Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to entertain and c:l_ecide the Complaint. In the impugned Judgment, several o , precedents have been mentioned and decisions of this Court, namely, K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an (1999) 7 SCC 510 and Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 have been analysed and discussed. We need not dilate on this issue beyond mentioning and applying the recent decision dated 01.08.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 titled Dashrath Rupsi.ngh Rathod v. State of Maharasthra. In view of the deliberations in Dashrath Rupsingh, the Appeal is allowed.

It is no longer arguable that the issuance of the notice has relevance to the question of criminal territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the case in hand, the dishonoured cheques were drawn on the Appellant's Bank, namely, Axis Bank, Bangalore. Subsequently, on presentation of the cheques

for encashment by the Respondent through its Bankers, namely, Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore, they were dishonoured.

G . It is interesting to note, even though it may not be relevant for the present considerations, that the Respondent has filed a suit for recovery of money •in New Delhi., repeatedly reiterating that tne ca\Jse of action arose solely and squarely in New DelhL H

' A

3. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Special Court), District Gurgaon, Haryana, on 14.6.2010 issued Summons to the Appellant. The Appellant thereupon approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which passed the impugned order. On 23.9.2013, this Court B issued notice and also ordered that proceedings before the

Trial Court shall remain stayed. It is evident, therefore, that evidence, post-summoning, has not been recorded ...

. 4. It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal, C as Courts at Gurgaon do not possess terrjiorial jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings underection 138 of the NI Act solely because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a legal notice of demand has emanated from that city. The Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent for refilling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka. As D mentioned in Dashrath Rupsingh, if the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to have been filed within limitation. The interim orders stand recalled, accordingly.

5. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.