The Delhi high court last week ruled in a cheque bouncing case that a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act should be filed in the court where the drawee bank is situated. In this case, Swastik Sales Corporation vs Advanced Medical Optics, the cheques were issued by Swastik in Mumbai on a bank there and was dishonoured there. The notice of demand was issued in Delhi. Following that the complaint was filed in Delhi. Swastik moved the high court for quashing the complaint arguing that the Delhi court had no jurisdiction to prosecute the case. The high court, relying on Supreme Court decisions, agreed with Swastik
Relevant fact of the case:
The complainant had not proved that cheque in question was issued and delivered to the accused in Delhi. There was no such allegation to this effect in the complaint and during the course of arguments also no such stand was taken by the complainant’s counsel. It is an admitted case that the petitioners (accused) are the resident of Mumbai and do not have either a residence or a place of work in Delhi. It is an admitted case that cheques in question were drawn on a bank in Mumbai and were dishonoured by that bank at Mumbai. It is also an admitted position that the notice of demand, though issued from Delhi, was sent to the petitioners at Mumbai. This is nowhere the case of the complainant that the notice of demand was served upon the petitioners in Delhi.
Crl.M.C.No. 842/2009 & Crl.M.C.No. 843/2009
Date of Order: 03rd March, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment