Criminal Appeal No. 1914 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 690 of 2011), Criminal Appeal No. 1915 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 718 of 2011) and Criminal Appeal No. 1916 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 749 of 2011). Case: K.K. Polycolor India Ltd. Vs Global Trade Fin. Ltd.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1914 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 690 of 2011), Criminal Appeal No. 1915 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 718 of 2011) and Criminal Appeal No. 1916 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 749 of 2011) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vinay Kumar Shailendra, Party-in-Person, Subhro Sanyal, Worthing Kasar, Vaibhav Rai Asithana, K.R. Sasiprabhu, E.C. Agrawala, Puja Sharma, Liz. Mathew, K. Datta, Manish Srivastava, Rahul Malhotra and Praveen Agrawal, Advs. and For Respondents: Annam D.N. Rao, A. Venketesh, Sudipto Sircar, Neelam Jain, Vaishali R., Shailender ... |
| Judges | T.S. Thakur, V. Gopala Gowda and C. Nagappan, JJ. |
| Issue | Negotiable Instrument Act, 1880 - Section 138 |
| Judgement Date | September 04, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
T.S. Thakur, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 15th September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby Crl. Application Nos. 1491, 2759 and 2760 of 2010 have been allowed and the orders passed by the Magistrate set aside and the matter remitted back to the Magistrate with the direction that the criminal complaints filed by the complainants-Respondents herein shall be disposed of expeditiously.
3. Complaints Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1880 appear to have been filed by the Respondent-company in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra which were entertained by the Magistrate and process issued against the accused persons. Revision applications were then filed before the Court of Sessions at Bombay challenging the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the complaints. The Revisional Court relying upon Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 held that the Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The orders passed by the Magistrate were set aside and the complaints directed to be returned for presentation before the competent Court. Aggrieved by the said orders the complainant preferred Criminal Applications No. 1491, 2759 and 2760 of 2010 before the High Court who relying upon the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 and three other decisions of the Bombay High Court held that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cheque had been presented before a bank at Bombay which fact was, according to the High Court, sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to entertain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial