Delhi High Court
Ms. Zeenat Insaf vs Dr. Sudhansu Bhattacharya on 11 January, 2011
Author: A. K. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M.C. No.1671/2010
% Judgment decided on: 11th January, 2011
MS. ZEENAT INSAF .....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh Sahni
& Mr. Rupesh Sharma,
Advs.
Versus
DR. SUDHANSU BHATTACHARYA .....RESPONDENT
Through: Mr.S.K.Bhattacharya,
Mr. Neeraj Boby, Advs.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers No
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes
reported in the Digest?
A.K. PATHAK, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of complaint
No. 5838/2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as
the "Act"), pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate,
Delhi.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that entire cause of
action had arisen at Mumbai; inasmuch as parties are
residents of Mumbai. Cheques in question were issued at
Mumbai; cheques were presented for encashment at
Mumbai. Drawers bank on which cheques had been drawn
was also in Mumbai. In spite of this, complaint had been
preferred at Delhi by the respondent through his Attorney,
who happens to be residing in Delhi only on the ground that
the statutory notice had been issued by a lawyer from New
Delhi. It is contended that mere issuance of the statutory
notice from Delhi would not vest jurisdiction in Delhi Courts
to entertain and try the complaint under Section 138 of the
Act. Reliance has been placed on Harman Electronics (P)
Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd. AIR 2009
SC 1168.
3. I have perused the complaint which has been annexed
with this petition as Annexure A. A perusal thereof clearly
shows the address of the respondent as also of the petitioner,
as mentioned in the complaint, is that of Mumbai. Father of
the petitioner has been impleaded as accused No. 2, whose
address has also been shown as that of Mumbai.
Respondent is working as Cardio Thoracic Vascular Surgeon
in Mumbai. It is alleged that he had operated father of
petitioner at Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai. Towards his
fee certain cheques were issued, which included the cheques
in question, drawn on HDFC Bank, 22-25 Ground Floor
Ashoka Shopping Center, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Mumbai. It
is these cheques which had been returned dishonored on
presentation. In fact, respondent had deposited these
cheques for encashment in his bank i.e. Standard Chartered
Bank, 50, Bhula Bhai Desai Road, Mumbai. From the above
it is clear that entire cause of action had arisen at Mumbai.
4. In para 22 of the complaint it has been alleged as
under:-
"22. That this Hon'ble court is
competent to adjudicate upon the
present complaint as the statutory
notice was issued from lawyers
Chambers Supreme Court of India, New
Delhi which is situated within the
territorial limits of this Hon'ble Court."
5. From the above, it is apparent that the respondent has
filed present complaint in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi only because statutory notice had been
issued through a lawyer, who is practicing law in Delhi.
6. In Harman Electronics (supra), Supreme Court had
held that mere issuance of notice would not attract
territorial jurisdiction of that court. In V.S. Thakur vs. State
of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Delhi) 2010 (1) JCC (NI) 40, a Single
Judge of this Court has held that sending of notice from
Delhi by itself would not confer jurisdiction on Delhi courts.
Similar view has been taken in Som Sugandh Industries Ltd.
& Anr. II (2010) DLT (CRL.) 475. In this judgment also, it
was held that mere sending of notices from Delhi to outside
does not confer jurisdiction on Delhi courts. In Online IT
Shoppe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State & Anr. 2010 (1) JCC
(NI) 27, also it was held that sending notice from Delhi
would not confer jurisdiction on Delhi courts.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that
Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and
try the complaint filed by the respondent. Accordingly, Trial
Court is directed to return the complaint to respondent who
shall file the same in the court of competent jurisdiction at
Mumbai, within one month from the date it is returned to
him by the Trial Court.
8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti to both the parties.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 11, 2011 /rb
