MS. HEMA CHATURVEDI Vs. SUNINT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT question which needs to be answered in this petition is "whether the courts at Delhi will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act") for the reasons that complainant has its registered office; cheque was deposited and notice was issued from Delhi".

(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that the Respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138/142 of the N.I. Act read with Section 420B of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner alleging therein that it was having its Registered office at Delhi and works at Hapur it supplied lubricant oil worth Rs. 11,52,350/ to the Petitioner on credit basis; Petitioner in order to clear the part liability issued a cheque No. 511402 dated 20th June, 2007 for Rs. 4,97,750/ - drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Chowk Allahabad Branch, Allahabad in favour of the Respondent, which was deposited by the Respondent in its bank i.e. Syndicate Bank, Mori Gate, New Delhi on 26th June, 2007 for collection. However, the cheque was returned dishonoured along with a Return Memo dated 5th July, 2007 for the reason "payment stopped by the drawer". Since the amount was not paid despite demand notice served on the Petitioner within the statutory period, hence the complaint. With regard to the territorial jurisdiction Respondent has averred in the complaint as under:

(3.) IT appears that the complaint had been filed in Delhi since Respondent is having its Registered Office at Delhi; its bank, where cheque was deposited, is in Delhi as also because the notice had been issued by the Respondent from its Registered Office at Delhi. In my view, merely because the Respondent has Registered Office at Delhi, its bank is in Delhi and the notice had been issued from Delhi, would not vest territorial jurisdiction on Delhi courts to entertain and try the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.