9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Interpretation of relevant legal precedents regarding territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonor cases. 3. The stage at which territorial jurisdiction should be determined. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court to Entertain a Complaint Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was returned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, citing several actions that occurred in Delhi, including the registered office being located there, submission and presentation of cheques, dishonor of cheques, and issuance of a legal notice from Delhi. The respondent contended that the major part of the cause of action, specifically the dishonor of the cheque, occurred outside Delhi, and thus the court in Delhi lacked jurisdiction. 2. Interpretation of Relevant Legal Precedents Regarding Territorial Jurisdiction in Cheque Dishonor Cases: The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., which identified five essential acts for completing the offence under Section 138: drawing of the cheque, presentation of the cheque to the bank, returning the cheque unpaid, giving notice in writing to the drawer, and failure to pay within 15 days of the notice. The court held that these acts could occur in different localities, and any court within those localities could have jurisdiction. The respondent relied on Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Ltd., which emphasized that mere sending of a notice from a particular location does not confer jurisdiction unless accompanied by other acts. 3. The Stage at Which Territorial Jurisdiction Should Be Determined: The court clarified that the issue of territorial jurisdiction should not be determined at the pre-cognizance stage. It should be considered after taking cognizance of the complaint. The court emphasized that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence does not need to have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant during the post-cognizance stage when the trial or inquiry begins. Conclusion: The court concluded that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate erred in returning the complaint at the pre-cognizance stage for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the trial court to proceed further and deal with the complaint in accordance with law. The court noted that a substantial part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, and the petitioner had the right to file the complaint in Delhi. However, it was clarified that the trial court could still ascertain the truth of the allegations and determine the issue of territorial jurisdiction during the trial. Order: The petitions were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The case was remanded back to the trial court with directions to proceed further with the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on a specified date. The Registry was instructed to forward a copy of the order to the trial court for information.
|
