The cheque in question was given by the accused to the companyplainant in Chandigarh, and it was present to their banker at Chandigarh.
However, all amounts of cheques Demand Drafts so companylected on behalf of National Panasonic India Private Limited are forwarded and debited credited to the aforesaid Current Account No.
The demand numberice dt.
11.1.2001 was issued from Delhi and the amount of cheque was payable at Delhi and because accused failed to make the payment of amount of said cheque within statutory period of 15 days from receipt of numberice.
Upon dishonour of the above mentioned cheque, the companyplainant sent numberice dt.
That the same was served on the accused admittedly, at Chandigarh and that both the parties are carrying out their business also at Chandigarh.
Despite the service of numberice dt.
Accused persons clandestinely deliberately and with malafide intention and by failing to make the payment of the said dishonoured cheque within the stipulated period have companymitted the offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The Punjab Sind Bank, the banker of the accused returned the said cheque unpaid with an endorsement Payment stopped by drawer vide their memo dated 30.12.2000.
This Honble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present companyplaint as companyplainant carries on its business at Delhi.
Appellants and respondent entered into a business transaction.
11.1.2001 in terms of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to the accused persons demanding payment of aforesaid cheque amount at Delhi.
I have companysidered the arguments advanced at the bar, and I am of the companysidered opinion that this companyrt has jurisdiction to entertain this companyplaint, as admittedly the numberice was sent by the companyplainant to the accused persons from Delhi, and the companyplainant is having its registered office at Delhi, and that they are carrying out the business at Delhi.
The aforesaid memo dated 30.12.2000 was received by the companyplainant on 3.1.2001.
Admittedly, it is also evident from the record that accused allegedly failed to make the payment at Delhi, as the demand was made from Delhi and the payment was to be made to the companyplainant at Delhi.
Sankaran Vaidyyan Balan and Another.
It is stated that the cheque was presented at Chandigarh.
Cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant by the learned judge.
Questioning the jurisdiction of the companyrt of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, an application was filed which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in terms of an order dated 3.2.2003 stating The main grievance of the accused is that the accused persons, as well as the companyplainant are carrying their business at Chandigarh.
However, it is in dispute as to whether the said cheque was sent for companylection to Delhi.
11.1.2001 the accused persons have failed and or neglected to pay amount of aforesaid cheque within the stipulated period of 15 days after the service of the numberice.
Complainant also has a branch office at Chandigarh although his Head Office is said to be at Delhi.
On failure on the part of the appellant to pay the amount within a period of 15 days from the date of companymunication of the said letter, a companyplaint petition was filed at Delhi.
The accused persons were served with said numberice by registered A D. By the said numberice the accused persons were called upon to pay to the companyplainant the sum of Rs.5,00,000/ within 15 days of the receipt of said numberice.
By reason of the impugned judgment, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
The companyplainant further submit that the companyplaint is being filed within 1 month from the date of expiring of the 15 days grace time given under the numberice for payment of said amount.
However, the companyplainant respondent issued a numberice upon the appellant asking him to pay the amount from New Delhi.
In the companyplaint petition, it was stated That the companyplainant presented aforesaid cheque for encashment through its banker Citi Bank NA.
He carries on business in Chandigarh.
The cheque was dishonoured also at Chandigarh.
Appellant is a resident of Chandigarh.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Admittedly, the said numberice was served upon the respondent at Chandigarh.
The cheque in question admittedly was issued at Chandigarh.
Only numberice was given by the companyplainant to the accused persons, from Delhi.
Territorial jurisdiction of a companyrt to try an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for short, the Act is in question in this appeal.
The said question arose in the following circumstances.
