SANJEEV GUPTA Vs. SANJAY ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th September, 2013 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the respondent's revision petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. The brief relevant facts relating to this case are as under: -

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has urged at the time of hearing of this petition is that the Delhi Court has the territorial jurisdiction as the cheques in question were received at Delhi, presented at Citibank at Delhi, returned unpaid to the same bank at Delhi, the information of dishonour of cheque was received by the petitioner at Delhi, the notice of dishonour was sent from Delhi, the payment of the dishonoured cheque was to be made at Delhi, and the petitioner is permanent resident and carrying on business at Delhi. The law with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, : (2013) 10 SCC 72, in which the Supreme Court, after considering Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. : (2001) 3 SCC 609 and Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., : (2009) 1 SCC 720, held that the Court where the cheque is deposited for collection, has jurisdiction to try the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in terms of the principles laid down in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, : (1999) 7 SCC 510. The Supreme Court held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Courts did not even arise for consideration in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. (supra), and therefore it does not affect the ratio in K. Bhaskaran (supra). The Supreme Court further observed that in Harman Electronics Private Limited (supra), the Court held that a notice of dishonor under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alone would not confer the jurisdiction to try the accused at the place of issuance of the notice. However, the Supreme Court did not deviate from the other principles laid down in K. Bhaskaran (supra). In Nishant Aggarwal (supra), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the Court where the cheque is presented for collection in terms of K. Bhaskaran (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: -

(3.) THIS case is squarely covered by Nishant Aggarwal (supra) as the cheque in question was deposited by the petitioner in his account with Citibank, 27, Central Market, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi -110026 and, therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has clear jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned order is therefore, liable to be set aside.