9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MI 777 - SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, would have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015. The cheque in question was presented for encashment by the complainant in Canara Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi-92, the present petition is dismissed along with pending applications - petition dismissed. - MR. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI J. Petitioner Through: Mr. N.M.Varghese, Mr. Amarendra Choubey and Ms. Tessy Varghese, Advocates. Respondent Through: None MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J (ORAL) Crl.M.A.No.41175/2019 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AED 1,00,000/- was advanced by the complainant. In discharge of the aforesaid liability, the petitioner issued the aforesaid cheque to the complainant and assured of its encashment at the time of the presentation. It was stated that simultaneous to the advancement of the aforesaid friendly loan, a receipt was also executed acknowledging the receipt of the amount as well as handing over the aforesaid cheque. On specific assurance of the petitioner, the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque with his banker i.e., Canara Bank, Anand Vihar Branch, Delhi-110 092. The aforesaid cheque was dishonoured with the remarks insufficient funds . The cheque along with the returning memo dated 31.03.2017 was returned unpaid to the complainant. After g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en decided long back in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Inderpal Singh reported as 2016 (2) SCC 275 , where it was held as under:- 13. A perusal of the amended Section 142(2), extracted above, leaves no room for any doubt, specially in view of the explanation thereunder, that with reference to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the place where a cheque is delivered for collection i.e. the branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, where the drawee maintains an account, would be determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction. 14. It is, however, imperative for the present controversy, that the appellant overcomes the legal position declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction of the Court, where the cheque is delivered for collection (through an account of the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account). We are also satisfied, based on Section 142A(1) to the effect, that the judgment rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, would not stand in the way of the appellant, insofar as the territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings emerging from the dishonor of the cheque in the present case arises. 16. Since cheque No.1950, in the sum of ₹ 26,958/-, drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh, dated 02.05.2006, was presented for encashment at the IDBI Bank, Indore, which intimated its dishonor to the appellant on 04.08.2006, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
