GE CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. v. SUKHDEV SINGH

1. All these petitions are filed impugning the order dated 09.07.2009 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, whereby the revision petitions directed against the orders dated 28.02.2009 of learned M.M. (Special Court-2), DwarkaCourts, were dismissed.

2. The petitioners had filed the complaints under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents which were dismissed by the learned M.M. vide separate orders dated 28.02.2009 passed in all the complaint cases, observing thatthe Delhi Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain them. Arriving at such a conclusion, reliance was placed by the learned M.M. in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd., 156 (2009) DLT 160 (SC). The petitioners carried the matters in revisions before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, and all those revision petitions also came to be dismissed vide separate orders dated 09.07.2009. By these orders, the learned ASJ maintained the orders of learned M.M., upholding the lack of territorial jurisdiction ofDelhi Courts to try the complaints.

3. It is noted that the respondents were issued notices in all these cases and no-one has been appearing for them except in Crl.M.Cs. 2494, 2498 & 2520 of 2009. However, even in these aforementioned three cases, counsel appearedfor some time, but stoppedappearedsubsequently.

4. The petitions were being adjourned from time to time awaiting the decision of the Apex Court in Crl. Appeal 808/2013 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) 9434/2011] titled as Nishant Aggarwal Vs. Kailash Kumar ^ • Sharma. The Apex Court vide judgment dated 01.07.2013 rendered the decision in the said case, and relying upon its decision in K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 510, observed that there are five components of Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act namely,

(i) drawing ofthe cheque;

(ii) presentation ofthe cheque to the bank;

(iv) givingnotice in writing to thedrawer of the cheque demandingpayment•

5. It was observed that the complainant can chose any one of the five places to file a complaint.

6. Banking upon the decision of Nishant Aggarwal (supra), learned counselfor the petitioners submits that in all these cases, part of the cause of action arose in Delhi in that the Loan Agreements were executed in Delhi, cheques were delivered at Delhi as also presented at Delhi and also were received dishonoured at Delhi, and that legal notices were also issued at Delhi, and thus, in view of the latest law laid by the Supreme Court in Nishant Aggarwal (supra), the Delhi Courts would have jurisdiction. Apparently, there is good amount of force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the averments of the petitioners on to the issue of jurisdiction and law laid down in this regard, it cannot be outrightly said that the Delhi Courts would have no jurisdictionto entertain the complaints, and the petitioners cannot be denied the opportunity to prove it on record by way of evidence that Delhi Courts would have jurisdiction as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Nishant Aggarwal (supra). Consequently, the impugned orders of learned Addl. Sessions Judge as also the learned M.M. are not sustainable. Resultantly, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Trial Court. The LCR may be sent to the court of learned ACMM, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, who in turn, will assign these cases to the concerned court of M.M. Petitioners to appear before the court of learned ACMM on 12.12.2013. ^ 7. With the above directions, the petitions stand disposed of M.L.MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 26, 2013 akb