LexVINAY KUMAR SHAILENDRA versus DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014t9 S.C.R. 510 VINAY KUMAR SHAILENDRA v. DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2014) SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] C Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Complaint under, for dishonour of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction upon the courts to take cognizance - Held: Courts should take the jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases only if the drawee bank who dishonoured the cheque is situated within the o jurisdiction of the Court taking cognizance - On facts, issue of a notice from Delhi or deposit of 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. E In these appeals, the direction issued by the High Court to return aJlthe complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in which Metropolitan Magistrates in Delhi have taken cognizance only because the statutory notices in terms of proviso to F Section 138 of the Act demanding payment against the dishonoured cheque have been issued to the drawers of the cheque from Delhi, have been challenged. G H Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: The order passed by the High Court of Delhi simply directs return of complaints in cases where the same have been filed only because the statutory notices have been issued from Delhi. The direction proceeds on 510 VINAY KUMAR SHAILENDRA v. DELHI HIGH COURT 511 LEGAL SER. COMMITTEE the basis that issue of statutory'notices from Delhi by A itself is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi Courts to entertain the complaints. 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 B 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, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court which C simply requires the Magistrate to examine and return the complaints if they do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same, keeping in view the decision of this Court in Dashrath's case. [Para 5, 6) [514-F-G; 517-A-D] Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National D Panasonic India Private Limited 2008. (17) SCR 487:(2009) 1 SCC 720; Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (201~) 9 SCALE 97 - relied on. K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an 1999 (3) E Suppl. SCR 271:(1999) 7 SCC 510; Dwarka Nath v. Income- tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur and Anr. 1965 SCR 536 :AIR 1966 SC 81; Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors. V. United Labour Union and Ors. 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 579 :(1997) 9 SCC 377; Ada/at Prasad Roop/al v. Jindal & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 - referred to. Case Law Reference : .1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271 Referred to Para 2, 5 1965 SCR 536 Ref~rred to Para· 3 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 579 Referred to Para 3 (2004) 7 SCC 338 Referred to Para 3 F G H A B 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9· S.C.R. 2008 (17) SCR 487 (2014) 9 SCALE 97 Relied on Relied on Para 5, 6 Para 5, 6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2009 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 11911 of 2009. WITH C Civil Appeal No. 8469 of 2014. Vinay Kumar Shailendra, (In Person), Subhro Sanyal, Worthing Kasar, Vaibhav Rai Asithana, K.R. Sasiprabhu, E.C. Agrawala, Puja Sharma, Liz Mathew, K. Datta, Manish D Srivastava, Rahul Malhotra, Praveen Agrawal for the Appellant. E 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 a judgment dated 23rd F September, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of the. High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 11911 of 2009 whereby the High Court has in.voked its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. of India read with Section 482 of Gr:P.C. and G directed return of all complaints filed under Section 138 pf the Negotiable· Instrument Act, 1881 in which the Metropolitan Magistrates in Delhi have taken cognizance only because the s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.