ICICI LTD Vs. H V JAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts leading to these cases are that the respondent/complainant in all these cases lodged complaints before the learned Special Court for Economic Offences in Karnataka, at bangalore, on the allegation that the petitioner companies had violated certain provisions of law in not sending the share certificates duly transferred in his name, failed to send the balance-sheet and memorandum of articles, etc. and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 39 (2), 113 (2) and 219 (4) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act" ). The learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences in all the ca. ses and directed to issue summons to the petitioners herein. In some cases, the petitioners approached the court and made applications under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge the accused persons on the ground that the said court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the cases as the registered offices of those companies are situated outside the Karnataka State. The learned magistrate after hearing both the parties rejected the application holding that the court had territorial jurisdiction to try the offences. As against thai order criminal petitions are filed. In other cases the petitioners have not approached the court below. On the other hand, they questioned the order passed by the learned court issuing summons to them after taking cognizance of the offences directly in this court,

(2.) THE learned advocates appearing for the petitioner companies have specifically argued that the special Court for Economic Offences at Bangalore has no territorial jurisdiction and, therefore, directing issue of notices to the petitioners herein after taking cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondent is contrary to the provisions of law. Since the court lacks territorial jurisdiction, the entire proceedings will have to be quashed on the ground that the offence is said to have been committed by the company only where the registered office is located. Admittedly, the registered offices of the petitioner-companies. are not located in Karnataka, much less in bangalore. On the other hand, the registered office is either at Bombay or Gujarat as per the addresses shown above. They further contended that cognizance taken by the court which is not vested with the power is illegal and, therefore, all these petitions deserve to be allowed.

(3.) PER contra, the respondent who is a shareholder and also a practising advocate has strenuously argued that the Special Court has jurisdiction as the respondent is a permanent resident of bangalore and the letters requesting the company to transfer the shares and also to send the memorandum of articles, balance-sheets, etc. , were sent from Bangalore, to the addressee at bombay and Gujarat where the registered office of the companies is situated have not been complied with, within the stipulated time and thereby the offences have been committed. It is not the posting of the letter or the transfer of shares, etc. , which will decide the jurisdiction. On the other hand, where those articles were delivered is the place which determines the territorial jurisdiction of the court. As the respondent received the delivery in Bangalore, the Special Court at Bangalore has to try the case. On these grounds, the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners are liable to be rejected.