Full Text
Translation output
$-26-35 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1080/2010 & Crl.M.A. No. 3829/2010
SWASTIK SALES CORPORATION & ORS.
Petitioners
Through Mi". Chirag M. Shroffwith Mi". Narendra
Kumai- Goyal, Advs.
CRL.M.C. 1080/2010 & Crl.M.A. No. 3829/2010
SWASTIK SALES CORPORATION & ORS.
Petitioners
Through Mi". Chirag M. Shroffwith Mi". Narendra
Kumai- Goyal, Advs.
VERSUS
ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS I P.LTD.
Through Mr. S.N. Miti-a, Adv. AND
Through Mr. S.N. Miti-a, Adv. AND
CRL.M.C. 1081/2010 & & Crl.M.A. No. 3832/2010
Respondent
Through Mi". Chirag M. Shroffwith Mr. Narendra Kumar Goyal, Advs.
Respondent
Through Mi". Chirag M. Shroffwith Mr. Narendra Kumar Goyal, Advs.
VERSUS
ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS P.LTD.
Through Mr. S.N. Mitra, Adv. AND 2013:DHC:6748
Through Mr. S.N. Mitra, Adv. AND 2013:DHC:6748
CRL.M.C. 1082/2010 & Crl.M.A. No. 3834/2010
Through Mr. Chii'ag M. Shroffwith Mi". Narendra
Through Mr. Chii'ag M. Shroffwith Mi". Narendra
VERSUS
Through Mr. S.N. Mitia, Adv. AND
CRL.M.C. 1083/2010 & Crl.M.A. No. 3836/2010
Through Mi". Chirag M. Shroffwith Mr. Nai'endra
Through Mi". Chirag M. Shroffwith Mr. Nai'endra
VERSUS
Through Mi". S.N. Mitra, Adv. AND
CRL.M.C. 1084/2010 & Crl.M.A. No. 3838/2010
Thi'ough Mr. Chirag M. Shroffwith Mr. Narendra
Thi'ough Mr. Chirag M. Shroffwith Mr. Narendra
VERSUS
AND
CRL.M.C. 1085/2010 & Crl.M.A. No. 3840/2010
Through Mr. Chirag M. Shroffwith Mi". Narendra
Through Mr. Chirag M. Shroffwith Mi". Narendra
VERSUS
.... Respondent AND
CRL.M.C. 1086/2010 & Crl.M.A. No. 3842/2010
Through Mr. Chirag M. Shroffwith Mi". Narendra
Through Mr. Chirag M. Shroffwith Mi". Narendra
VERSUS
AND
CRL.M.C. 1087/2010 andCrl.MA. No. 3844/2010
Petition Thi'ough Mr. Chii-ag M. Shcroffwith Mi". Narendra
Petition Thi'ough Mr. Chii-ag M. Shcroffwith Mi". Narendra
VERSUS
AND
CRL.M.C. 1088/2010 & Crl.M.A. No. 3846/2010
Through Mi". Chii-ag M. Shioffwith Mi". Narendra
Through Mi". Chii-ag M. Shioffwith Mi". Narendra
VERSUS
•4"
AND
AND
CRL.M.C. 115/2012 and Crl.M.A No. 435/2012
Through Mr. Chirag M. Shroffwith Mr. Narendra Kumai" Goyal, Advs.
Through Mr. Chirag M. Shroffwith Mr. Narendra Kumai" Goyal, Advs.
VERSUS
ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS (I) P.LTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
05.03.2013 Counsels appearing for the parties very faiiiy submit that earlier these petitioners had prefeiTed two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to seek quashing of criminal complaints filed by the respondents on the ground of lack of territorial juiisdiction of Delhi Court and vide order dated 3'^'' March, 2010 passed bythis Court in Crl.M.C. No, 842/2009 and Crl.M.C. No. 843/2009 this Court took a view that Delhi
Comt has no juiisdiction to entertain and try the said two complaints filed by the respondents and accordingly directed return ofthe two complaints to the respondents for presenting the same before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Counsel for the respondents submits that pursuant to the said order passed by this Court the respondents had already filed the said two criminal complaints before the Bandra Court, Mumbai. All these 10 petitions have been filed by these petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint Nos.2204/1/07, 2211/1/07, 2205/1/07, 2210/1/07, 2203/1/07, 2207/1/07, 2208/1/07, 2209/1/07, 2206/1/07 and
322/1/10 filed by the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act on the same ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of
Delhi Court. It is admitted case between the parties that the cheques which were issued by the petitioners are subject matter of the same business transaction and indisputably all the cheques in question, which are subject matter ofthe present petitions were drawn on a banlc in Mumbai and were dishonoured by the bank of drawer at Mumbai.
Considering the fact that vide order dated 3'^'' March, 2010 this Court has already taken aview that Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try these complaints, therefore, it is directed that all the complaint cases which are subject matter of these petitions be also returned to the
11/ respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order and after return of these complaints the respondents will be at liberty to file the same before the competent Court of jurisdiction of Mumbai Courts. All these petitions are accordingly disposed of in terms of the above directions.
Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Court
Master to both the parties.
MARCH 05,2013 rkr KAILASHGAMBHIR, J
05.03.2013 Counsels appearing for the parties very faiiiy submit that earlier these petitioners had prefeiTed two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to seek quashing of criminal complaints filed by the respondents on the ground of lack of territorial juiisdiction of Delhi Court and vide order dated 3'^'' March, 2010 passed bythis Court in Crl.M.C. No, 842/2009 and Crl.M.C. No. 843/2009 this Court took a view that Delhi
Comt has no juiisdiction to entertain and try the said two complaints filed by the respondents and accordingly directed return ofthe two complaints to the respondents for presenting the same before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Counsel for the respondents submits that pursuant to the said order passed by this Court the respondents had already filed the said two criminal complaints before the Bandra Court, Mumbai. All these 10 petitions have been filed by these petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint Nos.2204/1/07, 2211/1/07, 2205/1/07, 2210/1/07, 2203/1/07, 2207/1/07, 2208/1/07, 2209/1/07, 2206/1/07 and
322/1/10 filed by the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act on the same ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of
Delhi Court. It is admitted case between the parties that the cheques which were issued by the petitioners are subject matter of the same business transaction and indisputably all the cheques in question, which are subject matter ofthe present petitions were drawn on a banlc in Mumbai and were dishonoured by the bank of drawer at Mumbai.
Considering the fact that vide order dated 3'^'' March, 2010 this Court has already taken aview that Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try these complaints, therefore, it is directed that all the complaint cases which are subject matter of these petitions be also returned to the
11/ respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order and after return of these complaints the respondents will be at liberty to file the same before the competent Court of jurisdiction of Mumbai Courts. All these petitions are accordingly disposed of in terms of the above directions.
Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Court
Master to both the parties.
MARCH 05,2013 rkr KAILASHGAMBHIR, J
JUDGMENT