GSC TOUGHENED GLASS PVT. LTD. Vs. NILESH RAGHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith finally.

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 is the proprietor of M/s. K.N. Engineering Company. The respondent had placed an order with the petitioner-Company for different kinds of glasses. The petitioner-Company had despatched the goods ordered, which were received by the respondent No. 1 under various Excise invoices. The payment towards the said purchase for the period 23.8.2006 to 7.2.2009 was to the tune of Rs. 2,80,842.68. The respondent No. 1 had issued two cheques towards the said payment, cheque No. 002708 dated 28.8.2008 was issued for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, whereas the cheque No. 002709 dated 28.9.2008 was for a sum of Rs. 1,87,856/-. The petitioner had presented the said cheques for encashment to Corporation Bank, Airoli, Navi Mumbai. Both the cheques were dishonoured vide Memo dated 23.1.2009 for the reason "Funds insufficient". The petitioner had issued a statutory to notice the respondent on 4.2.2009 through his Advocate, whose office is situated at Thane. The Advocate, who had issued the notice on behalf of the present petitioner, had called upon the respondent to pay the legally enforceable debt to him. The petitioner then filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane, which was registered as C.C. No. 1407/2009. The respondent herein had raised a preliminary objection in respect of the jurisdiction of the said Court to try the case. The said complaint below Exhibit 10 was allowed by the Magistrate. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the Court at Thane had jurisdiction to try the said case since the notice was issued from Thane.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 6 of the statutory notice issued by the Advocate Shri B.S. Hatale dated 4.2.2009. It is specifically contended in the notice as follows:-