W.P.(C)--1684/2016. Case: M/S SOMANI WORSTED PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AEZ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--1684/2016 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | May 20, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. No.1684/2016
Judgment reserved on : 20.12.2017 Date of decision : 20.05.2019
M/S SOMANI WORSTED PRIVATE LIMITED ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Nikita
Batra, Ms. Neha Rajpal, Ms. Pankhuri, Advs.
versus
AEZ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. for
R-1 to R-4. + Crl. M.C. No.1685/2016
M/S SOMANI WORSTED PRIVATE LIMITED ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Nikita
Batra, Ms. Neha Rajpal, Ms. Pankhuri, Advs.
versus
AEZ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. for
R-1 to R-4. + Crl. M.C. No.1698/2016
M/S SOMANI WORSTED PRIVATE LIMITED ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Nikita
Batra, Ms. Neha Rajpal, Ms. Pankhuri, Advs.
versus
AEZ INFRATECH PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. for
R-1 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.
-
The three petitions i.e. Crl. M.C. No.1684/2016, Crl. M.C. No.1685/2016 and Crl. M.C. No.1698/2016, all filed by the same petitioner M/s Somani Worsted Pvt. Ltd. assail the common order dated 22.03.2016 of the learned ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Crl. Rev. No.117/2015, Crl. Rev. No.118/2015 and Crl. Rev. No.119/2015, vide which the orders dated 21.08.2015 and 15.10.2015 of the learned MM-05, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case Nos.343/1/2014, 349/1/2014 and 350/1/2014 were set aside with directions to the learned trial Court to pass a fresh order in view of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 and the ‘Act’ passed subsequently.
-
Submissions have been made on behalf of either side.
-
A bare perusal of the complaints that were filed by the petitioner herein indicates that they were all instituted under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the year 2012 and are against AEZ Infratech Pvt. Ltd., the respondent no.1, its Managing Director, Shri Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, its Director,
Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta and its Authorized Signatory Shri Kailash Gupta arrayed as respondent nos.2 to 4 respectively for dishonour of cheques issued on behalf of the respondent no.1 allegedly by the respondent nos.2 to 4 all in favour of the complainant arrayed as the petitioner herein vide cheque bearing no.556029 dated 10.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.1,24,99,995/-, for dishonour of cheque bearing No.556035 dated 10.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.13,60,00,000/- and dishonour of cheque bearing No.556028 dated 10.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.2,25,00,000/- as mentioned in the respective complaints.
-
As per averments made in each of the complaints, the said cheques were presented for encashment at New Delhi and were returned unpaid at New Delhi and the intimation of the return of the said cheques as unpaid was received by the complainant at New Delhi. As per averments in the complaints, which are identical, it was stated that the office of the accused no.1 i.e. of the respondent no.1 herein was situated at Delhi and that the legal notice was issued from New Delhi and it was submitted that the cause of action for institution of the complaints arose and lay within the jurisdiction of the trial Court at New Delhi.
-
Vide order dated 21.08.2015, the learned trial Court observed to the effect that the facts of the complaint revealed that the complainant had deposited the cheques for encashment in his account maintained with the ICICI Bank, Base Branch, 612, Ground Floor, Opp. Rani Mill, Delhi Road, Meerut-250002, U.P. and that as per the complaint, the payee bank is situated within the jurisdiction of Meerut, U.P., which falls within the jurisdiction of District Court, Meerut, U.P. and
thus in terms of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, which came into force on 15.06.2015 with reference to the Clause 3(2) and Clause 4 thereof which are as under:
“Clause 3(2)
The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,-
(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated.
Clause 4 142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or directions of any court, all cases arising out of section 138 which were pending in any court, whether filed before it, or transferred to it, before the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 shall be transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub- section (2) of section 142 as if that...
To continue reading
Request your trial