Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.43 seconds)
Manju Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. Ajay Chimote (Director) on 23 March, 2010 cites

Icici Bank Ltd. vs Subhash Chand Bansal* on 15 May, 2009

Therefore, the question of jurisdiction is to be judged by interpreting the facts and circumstances of the case so that the drawer of the cheque/accused in these quasi civil cases is not unduly harassed by the complainant by filing complaint at a distance place/state in which it is not easy for the drawer of the cheque/accused to attend to the cases by leaving his business and by spending large amount of money in commuting from his place to the place where the court, in which the complaint is pending, is situated. In the present case the cheques in question were issued by respondents/accused persons at Amravati in Maharashtra these were drawn on Bank of India Dadar (West) branch, Mumbai. These cheques were presented for encashment by the petitioner/complainant at ICICI bank Ltd,Raviwar Peth Branch, Pune. There is no plea in the complaint filed before learned trial court that the revisionist/complainant has only one bank account that too in Delhi and e-banking facility was provided to the petitioner/complainant so the cheques in question were presented in Pune in one of the branches of the ICICI bank. There is no plea in the complaint filed before learned trial court that the imported article/goods in question were supplied from Delhi to the respondents/accused persons or the order was placed at Delhi by the 14 respondents/accused persons. During the course of arguments it is argued that it is the representatives of the petitioner/complainant who have deposited the cheques in question in Maharashtra, so the logical presumption is that the imported articles/goods are also supplied by the representatives of the petitioner/complainant to the respondents at their place in Amravati, Maharashtra. What clinches the issue is that in the legal notice dated 10/10/2009 issued on behalf of petitioner/complainant to the respondents/accused persons through counsel the petitioner/complainant after detailing that the cheques in questions have been dishonoured has demanded from the respondents/accused persons that in lieu of and against dishonoured cheques the respondents/accused persons should make the payment of the amount in question drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd Ameravati (and not Delhi) to the revisionist/complainant within 15 days of the receipt of the Notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or material irregularity in the observations made by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order dated 6/2/2000 in which the learned court blow has rightly applied Harman Electronics's case (supra) which is also followed in Subash Chand Bansal's case (supra) and Delhi High Court Legal Services Committe's case (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 99 - S Gaur - Full Document
1   2 Next