//
you're reading...
legal issues

Sec.138 of N.I. Act – Cheque drawn on Sydicate Bank , City Market Branch , Bangalore – Cheque presented for collection at Gurgoan ING Vysya Bank – Cheque dishonoured – complaint at Gurgaon – Transfer O.P. – Apex court held that Although the complaint does not claim jurisdiction for the Court at Gurgaon on the ground that the cheque was presented for collection there yet in the Counter affidavit, the respondent has tried to justify the filing of the complaint on that ground. Dashrath Rupsingh’s case (supra), however, does not, as mentioned above, accept presentation of a cheque to be a valid presentation for purposes of limitation within the meaning of Section 138 unless the same is to the drawee bank. That is the view taken even in Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609. On either ground, therefore, the Courts in Gurgaon could not assume jurisdiction. Following the decisions in Dashrath Rupsingh’s and Ishar Alloy Steels cases (supra), we have no hesitation in allowing the petition and directing transfer of the complaint to the competent Court to entertain the same.= TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.403 OF 2013 Sree Mahesh Stationaries & Anr. …Petitioners Vs. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. …Respondent = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41808

Sec.138 of N.I. Act – Cheque drawn on Sydicate Bank , City Market Branch , Bangalore – Cheque presented for collection at Gurgoan ING Vysya Bank – Cheque dishonoured – complaint at Gurgaon – Transfer O.P. – Apex court held that Although the complaint does not claim  jurisdiction  for  the Court at Gurgaon on the ground that the cheque was presented for  collection there yet in the Counter affidavit, the respondent has tried to justify  the

filing of the complaint on that ground. Dashrath  Rupsingh’s  case  (supra), however, does not, as mentioned above, accept presentation of  a  cheque  to be a valid presentation for purposes of limitation  within  the  meaning  of Section 138 unless the same is to the drawee bank.  

That is the  view  taken even in Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609.  

On either  ground,  therefore,  the  Courts  in  Gurgaon   could   not   assume jurisdiction. 

Following the  decisions  in  Dashrath  Rupsingh’s  and  Ishar Alloy Steels cases (supra), we have no hesitation in allowing  the  petition and directing transfer of the complaint to the competent Court to  entertain the same.=

The petitioner appears to  have  borrowed  a  loan  of  Rs.15,00,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Lakh) for business purposes from the respondent-company.

A

cheque allegedly issued in partial repayment of the loan  amount  and  drawn

on the Syndicate Bank, City Market Branch,  Bangalore,  when  presented  for

encashment to ING Vysya Bank,  Gurgaon  appears  to  have  been  dishonoured

resulting in the issue of statutory notices to the petitioners and  eventual

filing of a  complaint  before  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  First  Class  at

Gurgaon under Section 138 of  The  Negotiable  Instruments  Act,  1881.

The

Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the petitioners for  appearance

to face the trial.

Petitioners have, in that backdrop,  filed  the  present

transfer petition seeking transfer of  the  complaint  afore-mentioned  from

Gurgaon to the competent Court at Bangalore.=

Apex court held that

We  say  so  because  in  Harman  Electronics  (P)  Ltd.  v.  National

Panasonic India (P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720  this  Court  examined  a  similar

question and clearly ruled  that  a  unilateral  act  on  the  part  of  the

complainant of issuing a notice from any part of the country would not  vest

the Court from within whose territorial limits the notice  has  been  issued

with the power to entertain a complaint.

That judgment has been affirmed  by

a three-judge bench of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod  v.  State  of

Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 delivered on 1st  August,

2014.

This Court has in that case held that presentation of the cheque at  a

place of the choice of the complainant or issue of a notice  from  any  such

place do not constitute ingredients of the offence  under  Section  138  and

cannot, therefore, confer jurisdiction upon the Court from where  such  acts

are performed.

Although the complaint does not claim  jurisdiction  for  the

Court at Gurgaon on the ground that the cheque was presented for  collection

there yet in the Counter affidavit, the respondent has tried to justify  the

filing of the complaint on that ground. 

Dashrath  Rupsingh’s  case  (supra),

however, does not, as mentioned above, accept presentation of  a  cheque  to

be a valid presentation for purposes of limitation  within  the  meaning  of

Section 138 unless the same is to the drawee bank.

That is the  view  taken

even in Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609.

On either  ground,  therefore,  the  Courts  in  Gurgaon   could   not   assume

jurisdiction.

Following the  decisions  in  Dashrath  Rupsingh’s  and  Ishar

Alloy Steels cases (supra), we have no hesitation in allowing  the  petition

and directing transfer of the complaint to the competent Court to  entertain

the same.

2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41808 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,759,192 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,854 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com