Section 138 of the NI Act – territorial jurisdiction- where cheques were drawn – cheques were drawn on Axis Bank, Bangalore and presented at Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore – Statutory notice issued at New Delhi – High court held infavour of complainant – Apex court held that It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal, as Courts at Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings under Section 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 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.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 7653 of 2013] SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES & ORS. …..Appellants Vs. METSO MINERAL (INDIA) PVT.LTD. …..Respondent = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41832
Section 138 of the NI Act – territorial jurisdiction- where cheques were drawn – cheques were drawn on Axis Bank, Bangalore and presented at Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore – Statutory notice issued at New Delhi – High court held infavour of complainant – Apex court held that It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal, as Courts at Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings under Section 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 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.=
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.
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 the cause of action
arose solely and squarely in New Delhi.=
It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal, as Courts at
Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present
proceedings under Section 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 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.
2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41832
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 7653 of 2013]
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 7653 of 2013]
SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES & ORS. …..Appellants
Vs.
METSO MINERAL (INDIA) PVT.LTD. …..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
1 Leave granted.
2 This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana holding that since the notice as contemplated in
Section 138 of the Negotiable 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 decide the Complaint. In
the impugned Judgment, several precedents have been mentioned and decisions
of this Court, namely, K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (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 Rupsingh 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.
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 the cause of action
arose solely and squarely in New Delhi.
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 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, as Courts at
Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present
proceedings under Section 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 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.
2 This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana holding that since the notice as contemplated in
Section 138 of the Negotiable 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 decide the Complaint. In
the impugned Judgment, several precedents have been mentioned and decisions
of this Court, namely, K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (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 Rupsingh 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.
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 the cause of action
arose solely and squarely in New Delhi.
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 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, as Courts at
Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present
proceedings under Section 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 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.
……………………………………………….J.
[T.S. THAKUR]
[T.S. THAKUR]
……………………………………………….J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2014.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
New Delhi;
August 20, 2014.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment