Territorial jurisdiction in Section 138 complaints depends on dishonour location, not where the demand notice was issued.

Issuance of a Section 138 demand notice from Delhi did not by itself confer territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi court, because the place from which the notice was sent was not the legally relevant jurisdictional fact for cognizance. Jurisdiction instead depended on the cheque being drawn on a bank at Vellore and dishonoured there, leaving Delhi without jurisdiction on the basis asserted by the complainant. The complaint was therefore liable to be transferred to Vellore, and the transfer was also supported by the medical condition of one petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether issuance of the statutory demand notice from Delhi conferred territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi court to try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the complaint should be transferred to Vellore.

Analysis: Jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 138 is not created merely because the demand notice was issued from a particular place. The place from which the notice is sent does not constitute the legally relevant jurisdictional fact for taking cognizance. The decisive circumstance was that the cheque was drawn on a bank at Vellore and was dishonoured there, so Delhi had no jurisdiction on the basis asserted by the complainant. The transfer was also justified by the medical condition of one of the petitioners.

Conclusion: The Delhi court lacked jurisdiction on the basis of the statutory notice, and the complaint was liable to be transferred to Vellore.

---