ZEENAT INSAF Vs. SUDHANSU BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of complaint No. 5838/2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that entire cause of action had arisen at Mumbai; inasmuch as parties are residents of Mumbai. Cheques in question were issued at Mumbai; cheques were presented for encashment at Mumbai. Drawers bank on which cheques had been drawn was also in Mumbai. In spite of this, complaint had been preferred at Delhi by the respondent through his Attorney, who happens to be residing in Delhi only on the ground that the statutory notice had been issued by a lawyer from New Delhi. It is contended that mere issuance of the statutory notice from Delhi would not vest jurisdiction in Delhi Courts to entertain and try the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Anr. vs. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 1168.

(3.) FROM the above, it is apparent that the respondent has filed present complaint in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi only because statutory notice had been issued through a lawyer, who is practicing law in Delhi.