M/S. ESCORTS LIMITED versus RAMA MUKHERJEE

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 17-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 339 
M/S. ESCORTS LIMITED 
v. 
RAMA MUKHERJEE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
A 
B 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s.138 - Dishonour of 
cheque - Jurisdiction to try offence u/s. 138 - Vesting with which 
Court - Held: The Court within the jurisdiction whereof, the C 
dishonoured cheque was presented for encashment, would 
have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed uls. 138. 
Issue arose for consideration as to whether the Court 
within the jurisdiction whereof, the complainant had 0 
presented the dishonoured cheque '(Issued by an 
accused), had the jurisdiction to entertain a petition flied 
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 
1881. 
The High Court held that just because the E 
dishonoured cheques In question were presented for 
encashment by the complainant at Delhl or the demand 
notice was sent from Delhl, the Courts at Deihl would not 
have jurisdiction to try the case. The High Court accepted 
the prayer made by the drawee of the cheque (I.e. the F 
respondent) to conclude, that the Courts at Delhi did not 
have the jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by the 
appellant, under Section 138 of the Negotiable 
Instruments Act. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is apparent, that the conclusion drawn 
__ by-the Hign Court, In the Impugned order-;15 notin-
339 
G 
H 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
consonance with the decision rendered by this Court in 
Nishant Aggarwal's case wherein it has been concluded, 
that the Court within the jurisdiction whereof, the 
dishonoured cheque was presented for encashment, 
would have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint 
B filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 
In addition to the judgment rendered by this Court in 
Nishant Aggarwal's case, another bench of this Court 
has also arrived at the conclusion drawn in Nishant 
Aggarwal's case, on the· pointed issue under 
c consideration. In this behalf, reference may be made to 
the 'decision rendered in FIL Industries Limited vs. lmtiyaz 
Ahmed Bhat. [Paras 5, 6] [351-A-D] 
1.2. In view of the above, having taken into 
0 
consideration the factual position noticed by the High 
Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, this 
Court is of the view that the High Court erred in 
concluding that the courts at Delhi, did not have the 
jurisdiction to try the petition filed by the appellant under 
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 
E 
impugned order passed by the High Court is accordingly 
set aside. [Para 7] [354-E-F] 
Nishant Aggarwal vs. Kai/ash Kumar Sharma [Criminal 
Appeal no. 808 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9434 
F 
of 2011); decision of Supreme Court dated 1.7.2013]and 
FIL Industries Limited vs. lmtiyaz Ahmed Bhat [Criminal 
Appeal No. 1168 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8096 
of 2012), decision of Supreme Court dated 12.8.2013] -
relied on. 
G 
H 
K. Bhaskaran vs. Shankaran Vaidhyam Ba/an & Anr. 
(1999) 7 SCC 510 : 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271; Shri lshar 
Alloys Steels Ltd. Vs. Jayaswal NECO Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 
609; Harman Electronics Private Ltd. Vs. National Panasonic 
India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720 : 2008 (17) SCR 487 and 
M/S. ESCORTS LIMITED v. RAMA MUKHERJEE 
341 
FIL Industries Limited vs. lmtiyaz Ahmed Bhat 2014 (2) SCC A 
266 - referred to. 
2. However, during the course of hearing, whilst it 
was the case of the appellant (based on certain 
documents available on the file of the present case) to 
reiterate that the cheque in question, which was the B 
subject matter of the appellant's claim under Section 138 
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was presented 
for encashment at Delhi; it was the contention of the 
respondent, that the aforesaid cheque was presented for 
encashment at Faridabad. It was accordingly submitted, C 
that the jurisdictional issue need.ed to be decided by 
accepting, that the dishonoured cheque was presented 
at Faridabad. It is not possible for this Court to entertain 
and adjudicate upon a disputed question of fact. In case, 
the respondent is so advised, it would be open to him to 0 
raise an objection on the issue of jurisdiction, based on 
a factual position now asserted before this Court. In case 
the respondent raises such a plea, the same shall be 
entertained and disposed of in accordance with law. 
[Para 8] [354-G-H; 355-A-D] 
Case Law 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.