CANBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Vs. GITANJLI MOTORS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, dated 13.2.1992 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent was returned for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the complainant is a leasing company having its registered office in Bangalore and a local office at 1 E, Vandana Building, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. The complainant received from respondent No. 1 on 25.10.91 two cheques for Rs.3,60,000.00 each being the installments due towards the lease finance charges. The said cheques were deposited by the complainant with its bankers at New Delhi for encashment on 23.11.91 and 23.12.91. Both the cheques were returned dishonoured. As per the complaint the notice of dishonour was given as per Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite the notice, the respondent failed to pay the amounts under the cheques. Hence the complaint was filed. By the impugned order the learned M.M. was pleased to direct the return of the complaint on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

(3.) The complainant petitioner is in Delhi. The money was advanced at Delhi and was repayable at Delhi. The further fact is that the two cheques were drawn on a bank in Noida, Ghaziabad (U.P.). The cheques were dishonoured when they were presented for payment to the drawee bank at Noida. Therefore, the actual dishonour of the cheques took place at Noida, a place outside the jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi. On this basis the trial court felt that the courts at Delhi had no jurisdiction in the matter.