Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1163 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - legally enforceable debt or not - rebuttal of statutory presumption - territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint case - section 138 of NI Act - service of demand notice - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 has a bank account at the Yes Bank Branch in Thangal Bazar, Imphal. The date of opening of the said account does not have bearing on that irrefutable fact. The subject cheque was deposited at a Delhi Branch of Yes Bank for being credited to the said account. Mere presentation of the cheque at a Delhi Branch has no impact whatsoever in the light of the ‘Explanation’ to Section 142(2)(a), which categorically states that even if the cheque is delivered in any other branch of the bank of the payee, it shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch where the payee actually maintains an account. Therefore, presentation of the cheque at a Delhi Branch of Yes Bank is of no import at all - In the light of the amended provisions of the Act of 1881 and more so, Section 142(2)(a), and the edicts of the Supreme Court in relation thereto in M/S BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS INDERPAL SINGH [2015 (12) TMI 777 - SUPREME COURT] and M/S HIMALAYA SELF FARMING GROUP & ANR. VERSUS M/S GOYAL FEED SUPPLIERS [2020 (9) TMI 1240 - SUPREME COURT], it cannot be doubted that institution of the complaint case before the Trial Court was strictly in accordance with law, as obtaining presently. The Trial Court has jurisdiction over the area in which respondent No.1 maintains her bank account, being the account to which the cheque amount was to be credited. Therefore, the Trial Court clearly has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the matter. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CC. ALAVI HAJI VERSUS PALAPETTY MUHAMMED [2007 (5) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT], a presumption arises as to the service of the demand notice upon the petitioner as the address was shown correctly and there is no evidence of the said notice being returned unserved. Further, as pointed out in the said decision, this is a matter for evidence and cannot constitute a ground for non-suiting the complainant at the threshold. It is for the petitioner to rebut the statutory presumptions in this regard with satisfactory evidence - this Court finds that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the subject complaint case and the pleas to the contrary by the petitioner, on all counts, are bereft of merit. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.
|