9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner has contended that entire business transaction between the parties took place at Bassi Pattnam, District Fatehpur Sahib, Punjab where petitioner is carrying on business of sale and purchase of medical surgical goods. Orders for supply of goods were placed by the petitioner from Bassi Pattnam, inasmuch as, goods were supplied by the respondent No. 1 at the said business place of petitioner. Petitioner had issued cheque drawn on its banker namely State Bank of Patiala, Bassi Pattnam. Thus, Delhi courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as no cause of action had arisen in Delhi. Merely because cheque had been deposited by the respondent No. 1 with its banker at Delhi for encashment and notice of demand had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the same is a disputed question of fact which needs to be proved during the trial. In nutshell, contention of counsel for respondent No. 1 is that complaint case cannot be quashed. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. Perusal of complaint, a copy whereof has been placed on record, clearly shows that specific averment has been made to the effect that cheque had been issued and handed over to respondent No. 1 at New Delhi. In para 5 of the complaint, it is stated that "... it is pertinent to mention that cheque was issued and handed over to the concerned person of the complainant at New Delhi." This averment has been reiterated in para 12 of the complaint wherein it is stated "... The cheque was issued and ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which any one of those five acts was done. 5. Perusal of complaint shows that the cheque had been drawn at Delhi and if that is so then jurisdiction of Delhi courts gets attracted. Learned counsel for the petitioner denies that the cheque had been issued at Delhi. If that is so, then it is a disputed question of fact and allegations and counter allegations have to be proved during the trial. But the fact remains that at this stage averments made in the complaint cannot be disregarded. 6. As regards second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheque had been issued towards security and not in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or any other liability as a whole or in part is concerned, the same is also subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
