EAST COAST TRADEFIN LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta in C.1980 of 2007 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act whereby the learned Court found that it has no jurisdiction to try the present case and discharged the opposite party, has been challenged in this revisional application by the de facto complainant mainly on the ground that the learned Court failed to consider that he could entertain the case under section 138 of the N. I. Act and the case was maintainable in its Court because the demand notice was sent from an area falls within its jurisdiction; A short reference to the back drop behind this revisional application is required to be given.

(2.) The petitioner/complainant filed one case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the opposite parties herein who have failed to pay the cheque amount in view of the demand notice within the statutory period. The learned Trial Court issued process upon taking cognizance and on appearance, the opposite party challenged the maintainability of the case in the Court of the learned Magistrate on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The learned Court upon consideration of the fact found that sending of notice of demand simplicitor does not attract cause of action and as a consequence the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Subrata Munsi vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & State of West Bengal, 2007 2 CalHN 405. The learned Trial Court discharged the opposite party with a direction to return the petition to the learned Advocate for presentation before the proper Court having territorial jurisdiction.

(3.) The only question which appears to be germane in this revisional application is whether or not service of demand notice simplicitor attracts jurisdiction of a particular Court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.