MUSARAF HOSSAIN KHAN versus BHAGHEERATHA ENGG. LTD AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~' 
~ 
MUSARAF HOSSAIN KHAN 
A-
.._,. 
11. 
B!-IAGHEERA THA ENGG. LTD AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
l 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
). 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227-Territorial jurisdiction against 
order of sub-ordinate court-Held: Only that High Court within whose 
jurisdiction order of sub-ordinate court was passed has jurisdiction to c 
entertain application under Article 227 of Constitution of India unless it is 
established that an earlier cause of action arose within jurisdiction thereof 
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881-Section 138-Constitution of India, 
1950-Articles 226 and 227-Cheque deposited in a back in State of West 
Bengal, and on their bouncing, criminal complaint filed in that State itself- D 
However, against order of cognisance and issuance of summons, drawer of 
~ 
cheque filing writ petition in State of Kera/a, claiming that as cheques were 
).. 
issued from their registered office in that State, a part of cause of action had . 
arisen there-Grant of interim relief by High Court-Jurisdiction for-Held: 
Kera/a High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as E 
ingredients of offence under Section 1 38 of the Act constituting the cause of 
action did not arise within its jurisdiction; sending of cheques from State of 
Kera/a or drawer of cheques having an office there did not form an integral 
part of such cause of action. 
Appellant supplied stone chips to respondent for construction work in State F 
1 
of West Bengal. They deposited cheques for payment issued by latter in a bank 
in Birbhum at Suri in State of West Bengal. On bouncing of these cheques, they 
filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 
before Chief Judicial Magistrate at the same place. Cognisance of complaint was 
taken and summons issued to respondent were received by them at Kolaghat, · 
Midnapore, West Bengal In response, respondents tiled a writ petition in Kerala G 
High Court. Interim relief of stay of further proceedings pursuant to the above 
.. ~ 
complaint was granted by the High Court. Hence the present appeal . 
The question before the Court was whether the Kerala High Court had the 
595 
H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A jurisdiction in the matter. Respondent contended the cheques were issued from 
their registered office in State of Kerala, so a part of the cause of action had 
t 
arisen therein, therefore High Court there had the jurisdiction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: I. Only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the order of 
sub-ordinate court has been passed would have the jurisdiction to entertain an 
application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless it is established 
that the earlier cause of action arose within the jurisdiction thereof. (608-G) 
2.1. Kerala High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as 
C no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. [612-E) 
Union of India and Ors. v. Adani Exports Ltd and Anr., (2002) I SCC 567, 
Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd v. Union of India and Anr., [2004) 6 SCC 254 and 
Mayank (HK.) Ltd and Ors. v. Owners and Parties Vessel M V. Fortune Express 
D and Ors., (2006) 2 Scale 30, referred to. 
Nakul Dea Singh v. Deputy Commandant, (1999) 3 KLT 629, approved. 
2.2. The averments made in the writ petition filed by the respondent even if 
given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety would not confer any 
E jurisdiction upon the Kerala High Court. The agreement was entered into within 
the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court The project for which the supply of 
stone chips and transportation was being carried out was also within the State of 
West Bengal Payments were obviously required to be made within the jurisdiction 
of the said court where either the contract had been entered into or where payment 
was to be made. (611-C-E) 
F 
3.1. For the purpose of proving the ingredients of the offence under Section 
138 of the Act, the complainant was required to prove facts constituting the cause 
of action therefor none which arose within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High 
Court (612-D-E] 
G 
Goa Plast (P} Ltd v. Chico Ursula D 'Souza, (2004] 2 sec 235, Monaben 
Ketabhai Shah and Anr. v. State of Gujwat and Ors., [2004) 7 SCC 15 and Prem 
Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh and Anr., (2005] 4 SCC 417, referred to. 
Augustine v. Omprakash Nanakram, (2001) 2 KLT 638, approved. 
H 
3.2. A bare peru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.