RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARAHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was issued to respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are the original accused clearly indicating that this Writ Petition may be disposed of at the stage of admission. The notice was served as per the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner along with the postal receipts. However, none appeared for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

(2.) To state in brief, the writ petitioner is the original complainant. The respondents Nos.2 to 4 are the original accused Nos.l, 2 and 3. Accused No.l is a company situated at Alwar in Rajasthan. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were the directors of accused No. 1 and both of them were residing at Delhi. The complainant used to purchase mustard oil and packing material and to hand over the same to the accused at Alwar for the purpose of packing the same. The accused company used to charge packing charges from the complainant and hand over packed material to the complainant. However, some oil was not packed and the oil and packing material were not returned to the complainant.

(3.) Mr. Marwadi, the learned Counsel for the complainant/petitioner vehemently contended that the trial Court had committed error in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. According to him, consistent view had been taken by this Court that the payee can issue notice for payment of the cheque amount after the cheque is dishonoured from the place where the payee is living or carrying on business for gain and in case it is a company from the place where its registered office is situated. It is contended that the registered office of the complainant company is situated at Mumbai. The cheque was presented at Mumbai and after it was dishonoured, notice was issued from Mumbai for payment and it was expected that the accused would make payment of the amount to the complainant at Mumbai. It is contended that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 1999 7 SCC 510 the Court within whose jurisdiction the notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount is given has also jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned Counsel contended that in view of the authority in K. Bhaskaran, the Bombay High Court has held in number of cases that such a Court had jurisdiction.