Ms. Zeenat Insaf vs Dr. Sudhansu Bhattacharya

A.K. Pathak, J.—By this petition, Petitioner seeks quashing of complaint No. 5838/2009 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.

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 u/s 138 of the Act. Reliance has been placed on Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd.,

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.

In para 22 of the complaint it has been alleged as under:

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.

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.

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 and Another, 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. and Anr. 2 (2010) DLT 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. and Ors. v. State and Anr. 2010 (1) JCC 27 also it was held that sending notice from Delhi would not confer jurisdiction on Delhi courts.

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.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Copy of this order be given dasti to both the parties.