Territorial jurisdiction for cheque dishonour turns on where payment was due and refused, not on deposit with a collecting bank.

Territorial jurisdiction in a civil suit for dishonour of cheque depends on where the cause of action arose, not merely where the cheque was deposited for collection. The cheque was issued and accepted at Ootacamund, drawn on the drawee bank there, and the material refusal to honour it occurred at that place. Deposit of the cheque with the payee's bank in Delhi did not create any part of the cause of action in Delhi, and references in criminal law to presentation to "the bank" were held to mean the drawee bank rather than the collecting bank. No territorial jurisdiction arose in Delhi.

---

---

Issues: Whether presentation of a cheque at the collecting bank in Delhi conferred territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi Court to entertain a summary suit for dishonour of the cheque.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction in a civil suit depends on the facts constituting the cause of action. The cheque was issued and accepted at Ootacamund, drawn on the drawee bank at Ootacamund, and the essential act giving rise to the suit was the drawee bank's refusal to honour the cheque there. The authorities relied upon on cheque presentment and dishonour did not support the proposition that deposit of the cheque with the payee's bank at Delhi created a part of the cause of action in Delhi. The reference in criminal law to presentation of a cheque to "the bank" was held to mean the drawee bank, not the collecting bank, and the rule in civil jurisdiction remained that the place where payment was required to be made and where it was refused was the material place.

Conclusion: The Delhi Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

---