Royce Kizhankoodan vs Gurind Systems P.Ltd
2011 Latest Caselaw 4865 Del

$~17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CRL.M.C. 2886/2011

%            Judgment delivered on:29th September,2011

        ROYCE KIZHANKOODAN                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through : Mr. Venkat Subramaniam
                     and Mr. Zulfiker Ali, Adv.

                   versus

        GURIND SYSTEMS P.LTD.              ..... Respondent
                     Through : Mr. Hemant Malhotra with
                     Mr. Sharad Malhotra, Adv.


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. Vide this petition the petitioner has challenged the

summons issued by ld. MM in CC No.3891 of 2011 under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has challenged the very

factum of complaint and summons dated 06.06.2011 on the

ground of jurisdiction. I have perused the complaint filed

against the petitioner.

3. Para 13 of the complaint is as under :

"13. That the aforesaid legal notice of demand

stands duly served upon the accused persons as

on 28/03/2011 as per the A.D.Card received back.

But the accused persons have failed to make the

necessary payment in lieu of the necessary

cheques despite the lapse of the statutory period

of 15 days. Rather, they have sent a false and

frivolous reply dated 04.04.2011 to the above

notice denying their liability and making false

accusations against the complainant company."

4. The cheque deposited by respondent at Delhi. The

legal notice has also been sent from Delhi.

5. On this issue I have already given my opinion in Crl

Rev. P.170/2010 in GE Capital Transportation Financial

Services Ltd vs. Rahisuddin Khan decided on 09.09.2011.

Keeping in view the „doctrine of precedent‟, the judgment

delivered by the Division Bench of the Apex Court in

K.Bhashkaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidyan Balan & Anr (1999) 7

SCC 510 decided on 29.09.1999 is still binding till date. The

Supreme Court in case of K.Bhaskaran (supra) has held that

the Court has the jurisdiction over a place from where legal

notice is issued to the customer demanding payment of the

dishonoured cheque under Section 138 of NI Act, apart from

places where other components of offence has taken place

under Section 138 NI Act :-

                 i)     drawing of the cheque;


                 ii)    presentation of the cheques to the

                 bank;

iii) returning the cheque unpaid by the

drawee bank;

iv) giving notice in writing to the drawer

of the cheque demanding payment of the

cheques amount;

6. In the present case two components are fulfilled

(i) Cheque presented at Delhi

(ii) Legal notice issued from Delhi.

7. In view of the judgment delivered on 09.09.2011 in the

above stated case, I dismiss CRL.M.C. 2886/2011.

8. No order as to costs.

Crl.M.A.10246/2011 (Stay)

In view of the order passed in CRL.M.C. 2886/2011, this

application is dismissed as infructous.

SURESH KAIT, J

September 29, 2011 Vld