SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES & ORS.versusMETSO MINERAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

                       [2014] 9 S.C.R. 279


                 SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES & ORS.                       A
                                 V.
               METSO MINERAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2014)
                        AUGUST 20, 2014
                                                                - B
           [T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.)

          Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction - To entertain
    complaint u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint
    filed in the court at Gurgaon (Haryana) - Maintainability of - C
    Held: The courts at Gurgaon did not possess territorial
    jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings u/s. 138, because
    legal notice of demand had emanated from the city of
    Bangalore - Complaint returned to the complainant for refiling
    the same in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka - o
    Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138.

      . Respondent-complainant filed petition uls. 138 of
  Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court at
  Gurgaon, Haryana. The complaint related to the dishonor         E
  of the cheque drawn on the Bank at Bangalore and which
. was presentedror encashment to another Bank at
  Bangalore. When the Court at Gurgaon issued summons,
  the appellant challenged the same before High Court.
· High Court dismissed the case of the appellant holding
  that the courts at Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to            F
  entertain the complalnt. Hence the present appeal.

        Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: Issuance of the notice has relevance to the           G
  question of criminal territorial jurisdiction under Section
  138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the present case,
' the dishonoured cheques were drawn on the Appellant's
  Bank at Bangalore. Subsequently, on presentation of the
I

                                279                               H
    280      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 9 S.C.R.


A cheques for encashment by the Respondent through its
  Bankers at Bangalore, they were dishonoured. [Para 2]
  [281-F-G]

       2. The courts at Gurgaon do not possess territorial
8 jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings under
  Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act solely
  because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a legal
  notice of demand has emanated from that city. The
  Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent
C for refiling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore,
  Karnataka. If the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate
  Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to
  have been filed within limitation. [Para 4] [282-C-O]
                                   .
          Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra
D (2014) 9 SCALE 97 - relied on.
         K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an (1999) __7
    SCC 510: 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271; Harman Electrof:lics
    Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private.Limited
E (2009) 1 SCC 720: 2008 (17) SCR 487 - referred to.
                        Case Law Reference:
       (2014) 9 SCALE 97            relied on       Para 2
       1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271      referred to     Para 2
F
       2008 (17 ) SCR 487           referred to      Para 2
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1771 of 2014.

G       From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2013 of the
    High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
    Misc. Case No. 32999 of 2010.

          Jayant Bhushan, Dhruv Mehta, Madhav Khurana, Diksha
H
   SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES v. METSO MINERALS (INDIA)                  281
                     PVT. LTD.

 Rai, G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis Mohd., B.R. Pandey, L.K.                   A
 Pandey, Raghav Chadha, P.V. Yogeswaran, Munawwar
 Naseem, Sameer Abhayankar, Nitin Khare for the appearing
 parties.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                          B

      VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted.

          2. This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single
   Judge ofthe High Court of Punjab & Haryana holding that since
   the notice as contemplated in Section 138 of the Negotiable            c
· Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act'), had been
   dispatched from Gurgaon, Haryana and additionally, a
   response thereto was dispatched to and received at Gurgaon,
   Courts at Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to entertain and
   c:l_ecide the Complaint. In the impugned Judgment, several             o
 , precedents have been mentioned and decisions of this Court,
   namely, K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an (1999) 7
   SCC 510 and Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National
   Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 have been
 ·analysed and discussed. We need not dilate on this issue                E
   beyond mentioning and applying the recent decision dated
   01.08.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 titled
   Dashrath Rupsi.ngh Rathod v. State of Maharasthra. In view of
   the deliberations in Dashrath Rupsingh, the Appeal is allowed.
   It is no longer arguable that the issuance of the notice has
   relevance to the question of criminal territorial jurisdiction under
                                                                          F
   Section 138 of the NI Act. In the case in hand, the dishonoured
   cheques were drawn on the Appellant's Bank, namely, Axis
   Bank, Bangalore. Subsequently, on presentation of the cheques
   for encashment by the Respondent through its Bankers, namely,
   Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore, they were dishonoured.             G
. It is interesting to note, even though it may not be relevant for
   the present considerations, that the Respondent has filed· a suit
   for recovery of money •in New Delhi., repeatedly reiterating that
   tne ca\Jse of action arose solely and squarely in New DelhL
                                                                          H
      282        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 9 S.C.R.


' A     3. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
   Class (Special Court), District Gurgaon, Haryana, on 14.6.2010
   issued Summons to the Appellant. The Appellant thereupon
   approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh,
   which passed the impugned order. On 23.9.2013, this Court
 B issued notice and also ordered that proceedings before the
   Trial Court shall remain stayed. It is evident, therefore, that
   evidence, post-summoning, has not been recorded ...

        . 4. It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal,
 C as Courts at Gurgaon do not possess terrjiorial jurisdiction to
   entertain the present proceedings under~ection 138 of the NI
   Act solely because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a
   legal notice of demand has emanated from that city. The
   Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent for
   refilling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka. As
 D mentioned in Dashrath Rupsingh, if the Complaint is re-filed in
   the appropriate Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be
   deemed to have been filed within limitation. The interim orders
   stand recalled, accordingly.

 E          5. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                Appeal allowed.