TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vil Procedure 1908 for recovery of a sum of ₹ 1,25,55,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest. The said suit was founded upon a cheque dated 11.09.2002 allegedly issued by the respondent in favor of the appellant No. 1 for a sum of ₹ 93 lacs which was drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ootacamund, Tamil Nadu. The aforesaid cheque was, however, dishonoured when presented by the banker with the remarks of the drawee bank - Payment stopped by drawer . 2. In the aforesaid suit a leave to defend application was filed by the defendant in which an objection was taken that the Delhi Court will have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In paragraph 18 of the plaint, it was stated that the cause of action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tertain the suit are challenged by filing the present appeal on which we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has also relied upon the same judgments which were placed before the learned Single Judge and on the basis thereof it is submitted that it could not have been said that the Delhi Court will have no jurisdiction. It is stated by the respondent-defendant that the plaintiff as well as the defendant reside at Ootacamund and that the contract between the parties, that is, between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent herein was signed at Ootacamund. The properties for which the aforesaid contract was entered into is also located at Ootacamund, and the cheque in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Supreme Court in I.T. Commr. v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. [1954]25ITR259(SC) and Gouri Shankar v. Ram Banka AIR1963Pat398 . In fact the Patna decision referred to by the counsel appearing for the appellant is relied upon and based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the decision of Ogale Glass Works Ltd. (supra). 8. In the aforesaid background facts the issue that arise for our consideration is whether or not the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court so as to enable the appellant to file the aforesaid suit in this Court. In Ogale Glass Works Ltd. (supra) the question which came for consideration was the liability to pay income tax in respect of payments made through cheques. In paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills by cheque. The Supreme Court observed that this clearly amounted, in effect, to an express request by the said company to send the cheques by post and, Therefore, the posting of the cheques at Delhi, at law, amounted to payment in Delhi, Therefore, the Delhi Court would have jurisdiction. 10. The position, however, in the present case is different. The cheque was not required to be posted. The said cheque was accepted by the appellant from the Respondent at Ootacamund and the cheque was also drawn on a bank at Ootacamund. 11. The case of Gouri Shankar (supra) which was decided by the Patna High Court was a decision where the law laid down in Ogale Glass Works (supra) was relied upon and referred to. The Patna High Court after ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the cause of action arose partly at Giridih where the cheques were delivered and partly at Bombay where the cheques were honoured by the Bank; and it must be held that the Bombay Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 12. In the background facts of the said case it is clearly established that the facts of the said case are different and have no resemblance to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme court in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. 2001CriLJ1250 . In the said case one of the main issues was what is meant by the bank as mentioned in Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d used before nouns, with a specifying of particularising effect as opposed to the indefinite or generalising force of a or an . It determines what particular thing is meant; that is, what particular thing we are to assume to be meant. The is always mentioned to denote particular thing or a person. The would, Therefore, refer implicitly to a specified bank and not any bank. The bank referred to in Clause (a) to the proviso to Section 138 of the Act would mean the drawee-bank on which the cheque is drawn and not all banks where the cheque is presented for collection including the bank of the payee, in whose favor the cheque is issued. 10. It, however, does not mean that the cheque is always to be presented to the drawer's ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
