BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES Vs. SURESH SATYANARAYAN KABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original accused, being aggrieved by the order dated 8th July, 1994 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, bombay, whereby the Lower Court rejected the application of the petitioners/original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to dispose of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) FEW facts which are required to be stated are as follows : the complaint dated 25th January, 1993 came to be filed by the complainant/respondent No. 1 herein Suresh S. Kabra under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Criminal Case no. 77/s/73 in the Metropolitan Magistrate's 23rd Court at Esplanade. Accused No. 1 was, a firm carrying on its business at Pune, and having its registered office at New Marine Lines, Bombay. Accused nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of accused No. 1. The accused issued five cheques for a total sum of Rs. 1,61,200/- towards the sum which, was due and payable by the accused to the complainant's firm, for the price of goods sold and delivered by the complainant's firm to the accused, as per the order placed by the accused with the complainant's firm at Bombay. These cheques were dishonoured when duly presented with the endorsement, "refer to Drawer". Thereafter, statutory notice as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sent by the complainants to the accused, which was duly received by them. However, the accused failed and neglected to make the payment as per the notice, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint within the prescribed time-limit in the Court of the. Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd court at Bombay.

(3.) THE accused appeared and filed their say in which they took the defence that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint, because the cause of action arose only at Pune. This objection taken by the accused was rejected by the learned Metropolian magistrate by his impugned order dated 8th July, 1994, holding that since the registered office or the complainant was at Bombay, and since the goods were delivered by the complainant to the accused as per the order placed by the accused with the complainant's firm at Bombay, the learned magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners.