M/S. K.K. PLOYCOLOR INDIA LTD. & ORS. versus GLOBAL TRADE FINANCE LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 04-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 518 
M/S. K.K. PLOYCOLOR INDIA LTD. & ORS. 
V. 
GLOBAL TRADE FINANCE LTD. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1914 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 04, 2014 
rr.s. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND 
C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Complaint 
C under - Dishonpur of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction upon 
courts to entertain the complaint u/s. 138 where cheque 
presented for collection - Held: Presentation of a cheque for 
collection on the drawee bank or issue of a notice from a place 
of the choice of the complainant would not by themselves 
D confer jurisdiction upon the Courts where cheque is presented 
for collection or the default notice issued demanding payment 
from the drawer of the cheque. 
In the instant appeal, the issue pertains to the 
jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the complaint as 
E regards the dishonour of cheque. 
In criminal applications, the High Court relying upon 
the case of*K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an, held 
that the Magistrate in Bandra had the jurisdiction to 
F entertain the complaint as the cheque had been 
presented before a bank at Bombay, the said fact being 
sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to 
entertain the complaints and try cases. The order passed 
by the revisional court that the Magistrate did not have 
G the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint was set aside 
and the Magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial 
of the cases. Hence the instant appeals. 
· Allowing the appeals, the Court 
H 
518 
K.K. PLOYCOLOR INDIA LTD. v. GLOBAL TRADE 
519 
FINANCE LTD. 
HELD: A plain reading of the orders passed by the 
A 
High Court would show that the judgment proceeds 
entirely on the authority of the decision of this Court in 
*K. Bhaskaran's case which has been reversed by this 
Court in **Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra 
and Anr. This Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case 
B 
held that presentation of a cheque for collection on the 
drawee bank or issue of a notice from a place of the 
choice of the complainant would not by themselves 
confer jurisdiction upon the Courts where cheque is 
presented for collection or the default notice issued c 
demanding payment from the drawer of the cheque. 
Following the said decision, the High Court was wrong 
in interfering with the order passed by the Sessions 
Judge. The order passed by the High Court is set aside 
and the order passed by the Revisional Court is restored. 
0 
[Para 4, 5] [521-D-G] 
Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National 
Panasonic India Private Limited 2008 (17) SCR 487 : (2009) 
1 SCC 720; * K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an. 
1999 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 271: (1999) 7 SCC 510 - referred 
E 
to. 
**Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and 
Anr. (2014) 9 SCALE 97 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2008 (17) SCR 487 
Referred to 
1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271 
Referred to 
(2014) 9 SCALE 97 
Relied on 
Para 3 
Para 3, 4 
Para 4. 
F 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1914 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2010 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bomaby in Criminal Application No. 
2760 of 2010. 
H 
A 
520 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1915 and 1916 of 2014. 
Vinay Kumar Shailendra, (In Person), Subhro Sanyal, 
Worthing Kasar, Vaibhav Rai Asithana, K.R. Sasiprabhu, E.C. 
B Agrawala, Puja Sharma, Liz Mathew, K. Datta, Manish 
Srivastava, Rahul Malhotra, Praveen Agrawal for the Appellant. 
c 
Annam D.N. Rao, A. Venketesh, Sudipto Sircar, Neelam 
Jain, Vaishali R., Shailender Bhardwaj, Subramonium Prasad, 
Anil Katiyar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 15th 
September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at 
D Bombay whereby Crl. Application Nos.1491, 2759 and 2760 
of 2010 have been allowed and the orders passed by the 
Magistrate set aside and the matter remitted back to the 
Magistrate with the direction that the criminal complaints filed 
by the complainants-respondents herein shall be disposed of 
E expeditiously. 
3. Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable 
Instrument Act, 1880 appear to have been filed by th~ 
respondent-company in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate~ 
F 
Sandra w~ich were entertained by the Magistrate and process 
issued against the accused persons. Revision applications 
were then filed before t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.