YOGESH UPADHYAY Vs. ATLANTA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of these transfer petitions filed under Sec. 406 Cr.P.C., Yogesh Upadhyay and his proprietary concern, M/s. Shakti Buildcon, seek transfer of SCC Nos.25668/2019 and 26875/2019, both titled 'Atlanta Limited Vs. M/s Shakti Buildcon & Anr. ', pending before the learned 22nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, and the learned 20th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, respectively, to the South West District Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi, to be tried along with Complaint Case Nos. 42489/2019, 1464/2020, 7596/2020 and 4094/2020, all titled 'Atlanta Limited Vs. Yogesh Upadhyay '. These six complaint cases were filed against the petitioners by Atlanta Limited, the respondent herein, under Ss. 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, 'the Act of 1881 '].

(2.) The six cheques, which are the subject-matter of these complaint cases, were issued by the petitioners in connection with purchase of a NAWA-make crusher plant from the respondent company for a sum of ?.1,88,80,000/-, under Agreement dtd. 4/6/2019. This sale consideration was to be paid in seven installments by way of cheques. The first cheque issued by the petitioners for a sum of Rs.11,80,000.00 was duly honoured upon presentation by the respondent company. The remaining six cheques, however, were dishonoured on the strength of 'Stop payment ' instructions. The first two cheques that came to be dishonoured were presented by the respondent company through its bank at Nagpur, Maharashtra. The first two complaint cases were accordingly filed before the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra. The remaining four cheques were thereafter presented by the respondent company through its bank at New Delhi and in consequence, those complaint cases were filed before the Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

(3.) Mr. Rajmangal Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, would contend that as all the cheques relate to the same transaction, it would be proper and appropriate that the cases pertaining to their dishonour are tried and decided together. He would rely on case law to support his contention.