Hubli Pipe Corporation & Anr vs Vrindavan Tubes Ltd & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 5131 Del

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        CRL.M.C. 785/2011

%              Judgment delivered on: 18th October, 2011

        HUBLI PIPE CORPORATION & ANR           ..... Petitioners
                       Through : Mr. R.K. Sonkhiya, Adv.

                      versus

        VRINDAVAN TUBES LTD & ANR           ..... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. S.K. Jain, Adv.
                     Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for the State


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?              No.
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?               No.
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported
        in the Digest?                                   No.

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Admittedly in the present case, the cheque(s) in

question were presented for encashment at Delhi and the

legal demand notice under Section 138 Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881 has been issued from Delhi.

2. Vide a judgment delivered by this court on 09.09.2011

in Crl. Rev. P. 170/2010, 'GE Capital Transportation Financial

Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan,' view has been taken on

the jurisdiction keeping the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. S.B.

Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762, whereby 5 ingredients were

decided for offences U/s 138 NI Act as under:-

"The Offence u/s 138 NI Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence:-

1. Drawing of the cheque,

2. Presentation of the cheque to the bank,

3. Returning the cheque unpaid by drawee bank,

4. Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount,

5. Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. "----If the five different acts were done in different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become place of trial for offence u/s 138 NI Act."

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid

judgment passed by this court, has been subjected to

challenge in Special Leave Petition (C) No.29044/2011

'Vinay Kumar Shailendra Vs. Delhi High Court Legal

Services Committee & Anr.' and the Apex court vide

order dated 03.11.2009, while referring the matter to a

larger bench, had directed „Status quo, as on today, shall be

maintained until further orders‟.

4. Keeping in view the aforesaid Judgment dated

09.09.2011 passed by this Court, the present Petition is

dismissed.

5. In view of the main Petition having been disposed of,

Crl. M.A. No.2990/2011 becomes infructuous and dismissed

as infructuous.

6. No orders as to cost.

SURESH KAIT, J

October 18, 2011 RS