Source: https://www.azaadandcompany.com/judgement/vinay_kumar_shailendra_vs_delhi_high_court_legal
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:48:51+00:00

Document:
720. The Committee’s grievance was that notwithstanding a clear exposition of law on the subject by this Court in Harman’s case (supra) complaints had been filed and cognizance taken by the Courts in Delhi, relying upon the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510. It was in terms contended before the High Court that in the light of the pronouncement of this Court in Harman’s case (supra) the complaints could not have been entertained nor could the accused persons be summoned for trial in the Courts in Delhi. It was also argued that number of such complaints is so large that the Magistrates in Delhi were unable to handle and effectively manage the docket explosion and attend to what was otherwise within their jurisdiction and called for their immediate attention.
6. In the light of the above pronouncement of this Court we have no hesitation in holding that the issue of a notice from Delhi or deposit of the cheque in a Delhi bank by the payee or receipt of the notice by the accused demanding payment in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts in Delhi. What is important is whether the drawee bank who dishonoured the cheque is situate within the jurisdiction of the Court taking cognizance. In that view, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court which simply requires the Magistrate to examine and return the complaints if they do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same in the light of the legal position as stated in Harman’s case (supra). All that we need to add is that while examining the question of jurisdiction the Metropolitan Magistrates concerned to whom the High Court has issued directions shall also keep in view the decision of this Court in Dashrath’s case (supra).
(C. NAGAPPAN) New Delhi September 4, 2014 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1911 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5644 of 2010) Times Business Solution Limited …Appellant Versus Databyte …Respondent With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1912 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5645 of 2010) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1913 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5280 of 2010) J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J.
3. It is common ground that the cheques in all the three cases had been issued on different branches namely, Bank of India, Ruby Park and ICICI Bank, Kolkata and Punjab National Bank, Chapraula, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. which are outside Delhi. Complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act were all the same filed in Delhi because the cheques had been deposited by the complainants in their Delhi bank accounts for collection and because notice of dishonour was issued to the accused persons from Delhi. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609 the High Court held that mere presentation of cheques before banks in Delhi when the drawee bank is situated outside Delhi will not confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi courts nor will the issue of a notice of dishonour from Delhi would do so. That view, in our opinion, is unexceptionable having regard to the decision of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2014) 9 SCALE 97. This Court has in that case examined at length the principles underlying Section 138 and held that a unilateral act of presentation of the cheque anywhere in the country or issue of a notice of dishonour from a place chosen by the complainant does not by itself confer jurisdiction upon the Court from within whose jurisdiction such presentation is made or notice issued. Following the view taken by this Court in Dashrath’s case (supra) we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. These appeals accordingly fail and are hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any no orders as to costs.
(C. NAGAPPAN) New Delhi September 4, 2014 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1914 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.690 of 2011) M/s K K. Ploycolor India Ltd. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Global Trade Finance Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1915 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.718 of 2011) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1916 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.749 of 2011) J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J.
3. Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1880 appear to have been filed by the respondent-company in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra which were entertained by the Magistrate and process issued against the accused persons. Revision applications were then filed before the Court of Sessions at Bombay challenging the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the complaints. The Revisional Court relying upon Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 held that the Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The orders passed by the Magistrate were set aside and the complaints directed to be returned for presentation before the competent Court. Aggrieved by the said orders the complainant preferred Criminal Applications No.1491, 2759 and 2760 of 2010 before the High Court who relying upon the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 and three other decisions of the Bombay High Court held that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cheque had been presented before a bank at Bombay which fact was, according to the High Court, sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to entertain the complaints and try the cases. The orders passed by the Revisional Court were accordingly set aside and the Magistrate directed to proceed with the trial of the cases expeditiously as already noticed. The present special leave petitions have been filed by the accused persons assailing the view taken by the High Court.
4. A plain reading of the orders passed by the High Court would show that the judgment proceeds entirely on the authority of the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran’s case (supra). That decision has been reversed by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2014) 9 SCALE 97. This Court has, on an elaborate consideration of the provision of Section 138 and the law on the subject, held that presentation of a cheque for collection on the drawee bank or issue of a notice from a place of the choice of the complainant would not by themselves confer jurisdiction upon the Courts where cheque is presented for collection or the default notice issued demanding payment from the drawer of the cheque. Following the said decision we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the order passed by the Sessions Judge.
(C. NAGAPPAN) New Delhi September 4, 2014 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1917 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.7619 of 2011) Suku …Appellant Versus Jagdish and Anr. …Respondents With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1918 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.7772 of 2011) J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J.
3. It is not in dispute that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent on Syndicate Bank, Gokaran branch in Karnataka which was presented for collection by the complainant at Krishnapuram, Kayamkulam, Kerala but dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The complainant then filed complaint at Kayamkulam in the State of Kerala which were returned by the Magistrate to be filed before the proper Court as the Court at Kayamkulam, Kerala, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. The matter was taken up before the High Court by the complainants in Crl. M.C. Nos.514 of 2011 and 1653 of 2011 which the High Court has dismissed by the impugned order holding that the presentation of the cheque to a Bank in Kerala would not by itself confer jurisdiction upon the Kerala Court. The High Court has in support of that view relied upon the decision of this Court in Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 where this Court held that the issue of notice to the drawer of the cheque does not by itself give rise to a cause of action to confer jurisdiction upon the Court to take cognizance.
4. The view taken by the Magistrate based as it is on the decision of this Court in Harman’s case (supra) does not, in our opinion, call for any interference by this Court, in the light of the pronouncement of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2014) 9 SCALE 97 where this Court has examined the issue at some length and held that presentation of a cheque by the complainant at a place of his choice or issue of notice by him to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount are not sufficient by themselves to confer jurisdiction upon the courts where such cheque was presented or notice issued. Following the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case (supra), we affirm the order passed by the High Court.
(C. NAGAPPAN) New Delhi September 4, 2014 REPPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.)NO. 338 OF 2010 T.A.M.A. Jawahar …Appellant Versus Arun Kumar Gupta …Respondent AND TRANSFERRED CASE (CRL.) NO.4 OF 2012 J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.