GRANDLAY ELECTRICALS INDIA Vs. ESS ESS ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Grandlay Electricals (India), the Petitioner herein, vide instant revision petition has prayed for setting aside of order dated 28th January, 2011 passed by the learned M.M.-1 (N.I. Act): SE Distt., whereby the complaint of the Petitioner filed under Section 138, N.I. Act was returned to be filed before the court of competent territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the Petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 138, N.I. Act against the Respondents No. 1 & 2 claiming that the Petitioner company had supplied some material to the Respondent No. 1 firm. The Respondent firm accordingly issued Cheque No. 153379 dated 26.10.2010 for Rs. 15,99,770/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Ludhiana against the payment of the goods supplied. The cheque was presented by the Petitioner to its banker Punjab & Sind Bank, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. The cheque, however, was returned unpaid by the drawee bank on the ground of "Insufficiency of Fund". The Petitioner was informed about the dishonour of the said cheque by its banker vide memo advice dated 19.11.2010. The Petitioner, thus, issued a demand notice as envisaged under Section 138, N.I. Act to the Respondent firm, which was sent through registered A.D. Post on the correct address of the Respondent/accused. The registered A.D. notice was received back undelivered with the remark "unclaimed" on 03rd December, 2010. Since the Respondent/accused failed to pay the demanded amount of cheque within the requisite period of 15 days of the said notice, the Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138, N.I. Act against the Respondents No. 1 & 2.

(3.) On conclusion of preliminary enquiry, learned Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 28th January, 2011, relying upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Ltd.,2009 1 SCC 18,Shri Ishar Alloy Sales Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., 2001 3 SCC 609 and judgments of this Court, came to the conclusion that no part of cause of action arose within the territory of Delhi, as such, the complaint was returned for being presented before the court of competent jurisdiction.