2015 (3) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (P.) Ltd. [2008 (12) TMI 677 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] does not, in our opinion, call for any interference by this Court, in the light of the pronouncement of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod [2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT], where this Court has examined the issue at some length and held that presentation of a cheque by the complainant at a place of his choice or issue of notice by him t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... granted. These appeals arise out of an order dated 15th June, 2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the High Court has held that the presentation of a cheque by the complainant in a bank at Krishnapuram, Kayamkulam, Kerala did not confer jurisdiction upon Courts at Kayamkulam to entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and try the accused .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n upon the Kerala Court. The High Court has in support of that view relied upon the decision of this Court in Harman Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India (P.) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720, where this Court held that the issue of notice to the drawer of the cheque does not by itself give rise to a cause of action to confer jurisdiction upon the Court to take cognizance. 3. The view taken b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X