LAXMI TRAVELS, NAGPUR Vs. G. E. COUNTRYWIDE CONSUMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 4-4-2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), 5th Court, Aurangabad, whereby, an application filed by the complainant was rejected, thereby, it has been held by the Court that the J.M.F.C., Aurangabad has jurisdiction and authority to entertain and decide the complaint in question.

(2.) THE basic transaction between the parties took place at Nagpur. The parties are residing at Nagpur. The cheques are also presented at Canara Bank at Nagpur. As it was bounced, the endorsement also made by the Canara Bank at Nagpur. However, the complainant had issued notice of demand from Aurangabad and as there was no compliance of the same, the present complaint has been filed at Aurangabad.

(3.) THE Apex Court in M/s. Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yash Pal Singh, reported in 2005 All MR (Cri) 2029 (SC), followed in Musaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., reported in 2006 (3) Bom CR 98 : (AIR 2006 SC 1288), further restated the basic ingredients which are necessary to lodge complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Those are as under :