Vinay Kumar Shailendra Vs. Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and Anr. Dishonour of Cheque – Territorial Jurisdiction – Notice- Return of complaint. Supreme court--- Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.29044 of 2009)-Decided on 4-9-2014. whereby the High Court has invoked its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and directed return of all complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in which the Metropolitan Magistrates in Delhi have taken cognizance only because the statutory notices in terms of proviso to Section 138 of the Act have been issued to the drawers of the cheque from Delhi….. In the light of the above pronouncement of this Court we have no hesitation in holding that the issue of a notice from Delhi or deposit of the cheque in a Delhi bank by the payee or receipt of the notice by the accused demanding payment in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts in Delhi. What is important is whether the drawee bank who dishonoured the cheque is situate within the jurisdiction of the Court taking cognizance. In that view, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court which simply requires the Magistrate to examine and return the complaints if they do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same in the light of the legal position as stated in Harman’s case (supra)
Posted on: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:19:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015