//
you're reading...
legal issues

Transfer Petition – Sec.138 of N.I.Act – Territorial -Jurisdiction – Cheque bounced at Vellore Bank – Statutory notice issued at Delhi – case at Delhi – Apex court held that earlier decisions K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 was over ruled on 1st August, 2014 by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 – Hence the case is transfered from Delhi to Vellore = TRANSFER PETITION (CRL.) NO.197 / 2012 M/s Apex Distributors & Anr. …Petitioners Versus M/s Timex Group India Ltd. …Respondent = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41809

  Transfer Petition – Sec.138 of N.I.Act – Territorial -Jurisdiction – Cheque bounced at Vellore Bank  – Statutory notice issued at Delhi – case at Delhi – Apex court held that  earlier decisions K.  Bhaskaran  v.  Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 was over ruled  on 1st August, 2014 by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh  Rathod  v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.2287  of  2009 – Hence the case is transfered from Delhi to Vellore =

whether the Courts in Delhi had the jurisdiction to entertain the  complaint

in the facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  especially  when  issue  of

statutory notices was the only reason urged  by  the  respondent-complainant

for filing a complaint in Delhi.

Issue  of  a  statutory  notice  demanding

payment of the cheque amount is, in our opinion, not sufficient to vest  the

Delhi Courts with the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint  and  try  the

case.

We say so on the authority of the decision of  this  Court  in  Harman

Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. (2009) 1  SCC  720

where this aspect was examined at length.

This Court ruled that issue  of  a

statutory  notice  cannot  constitute  a   valid   ground   for   conferring

jurisdiction upon the Court concerned  to  take  cognizance  of  an  offence

under Section 138.

That position has been reiterated in  a  recent  decision

delivered on 1st August, 2014 by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh  Rathod  v.

State of Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.2287  of  2009.

In  Dashrath

Rupsingh’s case (supra)  this  Court  has  overruled  the  earlier  decision

delivered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in  K.  Bhaskaran  v.  Sankaran

Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 upon which the respondent  sought  to

place reliance in  support  of  their  contention  that  Delhi  Court  could

exercise jurisdiction based on the fact that notice of demand of the  cheque

amount was issued from Delhi.

4.    In  the  circumstances  and  keeping  in  view  the  admitted  factual

position that the cheque in question was dishonoured at  Vellore  where  the

bank on which it was drawn is located, we see no reason  why  the  complaint

filed by the respondents should not be transferred to  Vellore  for  further

proceedings. 

The  fact  that  petitioner  No.2  is  suffering  from  several

medical problems will also, in our opinion, be taken care  by  the  transfer

of the proceedings from Delhi to Vellore.

5.    We accordingly  allow  this  petition  and  direct  transfer  Criminal

Complaint No.3960 of 2008 titled M/s Timex Group India  Ltd.   v.  M/s  Apex

Distributers & Anr. from Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Courts  in

New Delhi to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at  Vellore  who  shall  try  the

case himself or transfer the same to any other Court competent  to  try  the

same.  No costs.

2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41809

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,729,188 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