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 JUDGMENT 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.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN] New Delhi; August 20, 2014.