9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Negotiable Instruments Act. In Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. [2008 (12) TMI 677 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 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 [2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT] - 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners 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. 3. Petitioners case, as is evident from the averments made in the transfer petition, is that the Courts at Gurgaon have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint specially when the cheque in question was issued and dishonoured at Bangalore and the offence, if any, was committed only at Bangalore. Issue of statutory notices to the petitioners from Gurgaon also does not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts concerned or justify continuance of the proceedings at Gurgaon. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
