Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The law with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been settled with the recent judgment of this Court in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, 2013 (7) SCALE 753 in which the Supreme Court after considering Ishar Alloy Steel Ltd. v. Jayaswals NECO Ltd., (2001) II AD SC 334 and Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., (2009) I SCC 720 has held that the Court within the local jurisdiction of which the cheque has been deposited would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The Supreme Court further held that mere issuance of notice under Section 138 would not confer any jurisdiction on the Court within whose jurisdiction the notice was issued. The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under:

12. Mr. Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the Appellant has also relied on a decision of this Court in Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Private Limited : (2009) 1 SCC 720. In Harman Electronics (supra), the complainant and the accused entered into a business transaction. The accused was a resident of Chandigarh. He carried on the business in Chandigarh and issued a cheque in question at Chandigarh. The complainant had a Branch Office at Chandigarh although his Head Office was at Delhi. He presented the cheque given by the accused at Chandigarh.

The cheque was dishonoured at Chandigarh. The complainant issued a notice upon the accused asking him to pay the amount from New Delhi. The said notice was served on the accused at Chandigarh. On failure on the part of the accused to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of the communication of the said letter, the complainant filed a complaint at Delhi. In the complaint, it was stated that the Delhi Court has jurisdiction to try the case because the complainant was carrying on business at Delhi, the demand notice was issued from Delhi, the amount of cheque was payable at Delhi and the accused failed to make the payment of the said cheque within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. It is further seen that the cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate at Delhi. The accused questioned the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Delhi before the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate at Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as, admittedly, the notice was sent by the complainant to the accused from Delhi and the complainant was having its Registered Office at Delhi and was carrying on business at Delhi. The learned Judge has also observed that the accused failed to make payment at Delhi as the demand was made from Delhi and the payment was to be made to the complainant at Delhi. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused. Thereafter, the accused approached this Court. This Court considered Section 138 of the N.I. Act and also referred to K. Bhaskaran's case (supra) and quoted the five components of offence Under Section 138 which have been noted in paragraph supra. This Court reiterated that the five different acts which are the components of offence Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were done in five different localities, any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the complainant would be at liberty to file a complaint at any of those places. Ultimately, this Court held that the Chandigarh Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the parties were carrying on business at Chandigarh, Branch Office of the complainant was also in Chandigarh, the transactions were carried on only from Chandigarh and the cheque was issued and presented at Chandigarh. This Court pointed out that the complaint did not show that the cheque was presented at Delhi, because it was absolutely silent in that regard and, therefore, there was no option but to presume that the cheque was presented at Chandigarh. It is not in dispute that the dishonour of the cheque also took place at Chandigarh and, therefore, the only question which arose before this Court for consideration was whether the sending of notice from Delhi itself would give rise to a cause of action in taking cognizance under the N.I. Act. In such circumstances, we are of the view that Harman Electronics (supra) is only an authority on the question where a court will have jurisdiction because only notice is issued from the place which falls within its jurisdiction and it does not deviate from the other principles laid down in K. Bhaskaran (supra). This Court has accepted that the place where the cheque was presented and dishonoured has jurisdiction to try the complaint. In this way, this Court concluded that issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of the notice would. In other words, the court clarified only on the service in such notice and failure on the part of the accused to pay the demanded amount within a period of 15 days, thereafter, the commission of an offence completes. We are of the view that this Court in Harman Electronics (supra) affirmed what it had said in K. Bhaskaran (supra) that court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is presented and in whose jurisdiction there is failure to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice can have jurisdiction to try the offence Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is also relevant to point out that while holding that the Chandigarh Court has jurisdiction, this Court in Harman Electronics (supra) observed that in the case before it, the complaint was silent as to whether the said cheque was presented at Delhi. In the case on hand, it is categorically stated that the cheque was presented at Bhiwani whereas in Harman Electronics (supra) the dishonour had taken place at Chandigarh and this fact was taken into account while holding that Chandigarh court has jurisdiction. In the complaint in question, it is specifically stated that the dishonour took place at Bhiwani. We are also satisfied that nothing said in Harman Electronics (supra) had adverse impact on the complainant's case in the present case.