Karnataka High Court
K-9 Enterprises vs The Branch Manager on 19 February, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE DAY OF 19th FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.100005 OF 2024 C/W
WA NO.100696 OF 2023, WA NO.100006 OF 2024,
WA NO.100016 OF 2024, WA NO.100017 OF 2024,
WA NO.100018 OF 2024, WA NO.100019 OF 2024,
WA NO.100030 OF 2024, WA NO.100031 OF 2024,
IN WA NO.100005/2024
JAGADISH
TR
BETWEEN
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T R
Date: 2024.02.23
10:38:25 +0530
K-9 INDUSTRIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SHRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SADIQ
S/O. MOHAMMED GHOUSE BASHA,
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. SY.NO. 536, PLOT NO. 52/B,
HONGA INDISTRIAL AREA, HONGA,
BELAGAVI 591156.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE BRANCH MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND
FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
R/O. 2ND FLOOR, S-3 SUMAN PLAZA,
CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD,
AYODHYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590010.
2 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND
FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
R/O. DARE HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR NO.2,
NSC BOSE ROAD, PARRY'S,
CHENNAI 600001.
-2-
3 . THE SENIOR MANAGER
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
R/O. MAIN/CENTRAL BRANCH,
#CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
MUMBAI 40001.
RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL NO.100696 OF 2023
BETWEEN
SHRI NADEEM S/O ZAFRULLA KHAN
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO. 27, SY. NO. 1061,
MAHARANI COMPLEX,
NEW GHANDHI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI 590016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
FULLERTON INDIA,
R/O. NO.1568/2, 1ST FLOOR,
SEETA SMRITI, MARUTI GALLI,
BELGAUM 590002.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LTD.,
R/O. SUPREME BUSINESS PARK
FLOORS 5 AND 6, B WING,
SUPREME IT PARK, SUPREME CITY,
PAWAI, MUMBAI 400076.
TEL:+91 22 6749 1234
3. THE SENIOR MANAGER
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
R/O. MAIN/CENTRAL BRANCH,
#CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
MUMBAI 400001.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
WRIT APPEAL NO.100006 OF 2024
BETWEEN
K-9 ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SHRI NADEEM S/O ZAFRULLA KHAN,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO. 27, SY. NO. 1061,
MAHARANI COMPLEX,
NEW GANDHI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI 590016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED,
R/O. CTS NO. 14, 2ND FLOOR,
SHRI KRISHNA TOWER,
RPD CROSS, KHANAPUR ROAD,
TILAKAWADI, BELAGAVI 590006.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMIED,
R/O. 18TH FLOOR, TOWER 1,
ONE WORLD CENTRE,
JUIPTER MILL COMPOUND 841,
SENAPAT BAPAT MARG,
ELPHINSTONE ROAD, MUMBAI 400013.
3. THE SENIOR MANAGER
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
R/O. MAIN/CENTRAL BRANCH,
#CENTRAL OFFICE BUIDLING,
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
MUMBAI 400001.
...RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL NO.100016 OF 2024
BETWEEN
KWALITY METALS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
-4-
SHRI. NADEEM S/O NAZIRAHMED LATIF,
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO.52, CTS NO. 6030,
KIADB, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
AUTO NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND
FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
R/O. 2ND FLOOR, S-3 SUMAN PLAZA,
CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD, AYODHYA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI 590010.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND
FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
R/O. DARE HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR NO.2,
NSC BOSE ROAD, PARRY'S,
CHENNAI 600001.
3. THE SENIOR MANAGER
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
R/O. MAIN/CENTRAL BRANCH,
#CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
MUMBAI 40001.
...RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL NO.100017 OF 2024
BETWEEN
K-9 ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SHRI NADEEM S/O ZAFRULLA KHAN,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO. 27, SY. NO. 1061,
MAHARANI COMPLEX,
NEW GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
-5-
AND
1 . THE BRANCH MANAGER
BAJAJ FINSERV,
R/O. NO. F03,
1ST FLOOR, LAXMI PRIDE,
JNMC ROAD, AZAD NAGAR,
NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590010.
2 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BAJAJ FINSERV, R/O. 4TH FLOOR,
BAJAJ FINSERV CORPORATE OFFICE,
OFF PUNE AHMEDNAGAR ROAD,
VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE 411014.
3 . THE SENIOR MANAGER
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
R/O. MAIN/CENTRAL BRANCH,
#CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
MUMBAI 40001.
...RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL NO.100018 OF 2024
BETWEEN
K-9 INDUSTRIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SHRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SADIQ
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE BASHA,
AGED 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. SY.NO. 536, PLOT NO. 52/B,
HONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA, HONGA,
BELAGAVI 591156.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LIMITED,
R/O. NO. 8, CTS NO. 5852/B,
3RD FLOOR, ARJUN EMPIRE,
CONGRESS ROAD, SHIVAJI COLONY,
TILAKWADI, BELGAVI 590006.
-6-
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LIMITED
R/O. 221 ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD,
MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600004.
3. THE SENIOR MANAGER
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
R/O. MAIN/CENTRAL BRANCH,
#CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
MUMBAI 400001.
...RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL NO.100019 OF 2024
BETWEEN
K-9 ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR.
SHRI. NADEEM S/O ZAFRULLA KHAN,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCCU. BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO. 27, SY.NO. 1061,
MAHARANI COMPLEX, NEW GANDHI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI 590016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE BRANCH MANAGER
IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED
(FORMERLY IDFC BANK LIMITED)
CTS NO.5650, 1ST FLOOR
ADSHAKTI TOWERS GOAVES,
KHANAPUR ROAD BELAGAVI-590003.
2 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED,
(FORMERLY IDFC BANK LIMITED),
NAMAN CHAMBERS, C 32, G BLOCK,
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400051.
3 . THE SENIOR MANAGER
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
R/O. MAIN/CENTRAL BRANCH,
#CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
-7-
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
MUMBAI 400001.
...RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL NO.100030 OF 2024
BETWEEN
K-9 ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR.
SHRI. NADEEM S/O ZAFRULLA KHAN,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. PLOT NO. 27, SY.NO. 1061,
MAHARANI COMPLEX, NEW GANDHI
NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
POONAWALLA FINCORP LIMITED,
ANNAPURNESHWARI BUILDING,
RAMLING KHIND GALLI,
NEAR TILAK CHAUK, BELGAUM 590001.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
POONAWALLA FINCORP LIMITED,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED),
SR. NO. 79/1, 6TH FLOOR,
ZERO ONE IT PARK, GHORPADI,
MUNDHA ROAD, PUNE 411036.
3. THE SENIOR MANAGER
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
R/O. MAIN/CENTRAL BRANCH
#CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
SHAHID BHAGAT SISNGH ROAD,
MUMBAI 400001.
...RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL NO.100031 OF 2024
BETWEEN
K-9 INDUSTRIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
-8-
SHRI MOHAMMED JAFAR SADIQ
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE BASHA,
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. SY.NO. 536, PLOT NO. 52/B,
HONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
HONGA, BELAGAVI 591156.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE BRANCH MANAGER
BAJAJ FINSERV, R/O. NO. F03,
1ST FLOOR, LAXMI PRIDE,
JNMC ROAD, AZAD NAGAR,
NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590010.
2 . THE MANAGING DIECTOR
BAJAJ FINSERV, R/O. 4TH FLOOR,
BAJAJ FINSERV CORPORATE OFFICE,
OFF PUNE AHMEDNAGAR ROAD,
VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE 411014.
3 . THE SENIOR MANAGER
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
R/O. MAIN/CENTRAL BRANCH,
#CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
MUMBAI 400001.
...RESPONDENTS
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE
THE ORDERS DTD. 31/10/2023 PASSED IN W.P NO.106356/2023,
W.P.NO.106350/2023,
W.P.NO.106355/2023,W.P.NO.106296/2023,W.P
NO.106351/2023,W.P NO.106358/2023,W.P NO.106352/2023,W.P
NO.106354/2023,W.P NO.106357/2023, AND THEREBY ALLOW THE
W.P NO.106356/2023, W.P NO.106350/2023,W.P
NO.106355/2023,W.P NO.106296/2023,W.P NO.106351/2023,W.P
NO.106358/2023,W.P NO.106352/2023,W.P NO.106354/2023,W.P
NO.106357/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-9-
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 14.02.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
In all these intra-court appeals identical orders
passed in the writ petitions are under challenge, and since
common facts and question are involved in all these
appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. In W.A. No.100005/2024, the order dated
31.10.2023 passed in W.P. No.106356/2023 is under
challenge whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected
the appellant's/petitioner's prayer for a writ of mandamus
directing respondents No.1 and 2 to deposit any cheques
issued by the petitioner to the respondents No.1 and 2 in
respect of loan availed by the petitioner from the
respondents No.1 and 2, only at Belagavi City, Karnataka,
which is the usual place of business of the petitioner and
respondents No.1 and 2.
- 10 -
3. Even in other appeals, similar orders passed by
the learned Single Judge in writ petitions are under
challenge.
4. Heard Sri. Santosh Pujari, learned counsel for
the appellants in the appeals and perused the appeal
papers.
5. The appellants in these appeals were before the
Writ Court praying for a writ of mandamus as stated
above, i.e., seeking for a direction to respondents No.1
and 2 to deposit any cheques issued by the petitioner to
the respondents No.1 and 2 in respect of loan availed by
the petitioner from respondents No.1 and 2, only at
Belagavi city, Karnataka. It is an admitted fact that
appellants/petitioners borrowed loan from respondent
No.1, a Branch of respondent No.2-financial
institution/company. It is the case of the
appellants/petitioners that towards repayment of loan, the
appellants/petitioners have issued cheques in advance and
the appellants/petitioners apprehend that respondents
No.1 and 2 might present the cheques for realization in
- 11 -
any of their branches through out India. Further, learned
counsel would submit that, if the cheques get dishonoured,
the Court in such place, where the cheque was
dishonoured, would get jurisdiction to try the complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(for short, 'the NI Act'). It is submitted that such place
would be outside the residence of the
appellants/petitioners and outside the place of business of
the appellants/petitioners.
6. Learned counsel referring to Section 142 of the
NI Act would submit that, if the cheque issued to the
payee, when presented to a branch of the Bank, gets
dishonoured, that Court, at which place such branch of the
Bank is situated, would get jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and in such
case, the petitioners would be put to hardship and they
would be harassed to run around the places where the
branches of respondent No.1 and 2 is situated. The learned
counsel would submit that the learned Single Judge
committed a grave error in rejecting their prayer for a writ
- 12 -
of mandamus and further, he submits that the petitioners
would seek for a direction to prohibit the respondents from
presenting the cheques issued by the petitioners wherever
their branch is situated. Further, the learned counsel would
pray for issuance of a direction to the respondents to
present the cheque issued by the petitioners only at
Belagavi City.
7. Learned counsel would also place reliance on
the Hon'ble Apex Court's order dated 29.01.2024 in
Transfer Petitions(s) (Criminal) No.68/2024, [Venagro &
Ors. Vs. Incred Financial Services Ltd.,] and would
submit that, in terms of the agreement, Payee shall have
to present the cheque for payment at the place where the
cheque is drawn.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners and on perusal of the appeal papers
in all the writ appeals, we are not inclined to accept the
contention of the appellants/petitioners and the appeals
are liable to be dismissed.
- 13 -
9. A writ of mandamus could be issued to enforce
any statutory right of the parties and when the
respondent-authority fails to perform its statutory duty. In
the instant case, it is not the case of the
appellants/petitioners that they are enforcing any statutory
right or that the respondents have failed perform their
statutory duty. Further, pre-requisite for issuance of
mandamus is, existence of legal right to the performance
of some statutory duty by the authorities against whom
mandamus is sought.
10. It is an admitted fact that the
petitioners/appellants have availed loan from respondents
No.1 and 2-Financial Institutions, and towards repayment
of loan installments they have issued cheques in advance.
If the petitioners/appellants have any right, the said right
arises out of the contract entered into between the
appellants/petitioners and the respondents No.1 and 2.
The appellants/petitioners have not shown any contractual
right or any Clause in the contract which states that the
respondents shall present the cheques issued by the
- 14 -
appellants/petitioners at Belagavi city only. On the other
hand, the NI Act enables the Payee to present the cheque
where the Payee has maintained the bank account. The
petitioners/appellants have not pointed out what is the
statutory duty of the respondents and how they have failed
to perform their statutory duty so as to issue a writ of
mandamus.
11. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the
writ petitions has considered each and every contention of
the appellants/petitioners, the decisions cited by the
appellants/petitioners and has come to the conclusion that
the writ petitions were misconceived.
12. The order dated 29.01.2024 of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Venagro & Ors. Vs. Incred Financial Services
Ltd., referred to by the learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners is an interim order. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has stayed the further proceedings in the
criminal proceedings arising out of the Negotiable
Instruments Act observing that the entire cause of action
for filing the complaints under Section 138 of the
- 15 -
Negotiable Instgruments Act, 1881 had accrued at
Hyderabad, yet the complaint had been submitted before
the Court at Calcutta, Jaipur and Gurugram only to harass
the petitioners therein. The case of the appellants herein is
entirely different and cheques are not yet presented for
realization. No cause of action has arisen for the
appellants/petitioners to approach the Court to seek a writ
of mandamus as prayed in the writ petitions. The
petitioners/appellants have not established any of their
statutory or contractual right to seek mandamus as prayed
in the writ petitions.
13. No ground is made out to interfere with the
orders passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, all
the writ appeals stand rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMS
