Jurisdiction Ruling: Dispatch Location Determines Court Venue

The Supreme Court held that the Courts in Gurgaon, Haryana did not have jurisdiction in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, solely based on the dispatch location of the notice. The dishonored cheques were drawn on the Appellant's Bank in Bangalore, leading to the conclusion that Gurgaon lacked jurisdiction. The Court allowed the appeal, directing the Complaint to be refiled in the appropriate Court in Bangalore, Karnataka within 30 days, deeming it filed within the limitation period. Interim orders were recalled, and parties were to bear their respective costs.

---

---

Issues Involved: Jurisdiction of Court in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Court: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appeal challenged the High Court's order, which held that the Courts in Gurgaon, Haryana had jurisdiction based on the dispatch of notice under Section 138 from Gurgaon. The Supreme Court referred to previous decisions like K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private Limited. However, the Court emphasized the recent decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, stating that the issuance of the notice does not determine territorial jurisdiction. The dishonored cheques were drawn on the Appellant's Bank in Bangalore, and the Court concluded that Gurgaon did not have jurisdiction solely based on the notice's dispatch location.

2. Procedural History: The Court noted that the Judicial Magistrate in Gurgaon issued summons to the Appellant, who then approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The Supreme Court intervened by issuing notice and staying the proceedings before the Trial Court, preventing the recording of evidence post-summoning. The Court emphasized that evidence had not been recorded due to the stay order.

3. Decision and Order: Considering the lack of territorial jurisdiction in Gurgaon, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the Complaint to be returned to the Complainant/Respondent for refiling in the appropriate Court in Bangalore, Karnataka. The Court clarified that if the Complaint is re-filed in Bangalore within 30 days, it would be deemed filed within the limitation period. The interim orders were recalled accordingly, and the parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

---