TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner has contended that entire business transaction between the parties took place at Bassi Pattnam, District Fatehpur Sahib, Punjab where petitioner is carrying on business of sale and purchase of medical surgical goods. Orders for supply of goods were placed by the petitioner from Bassi Pattnam, inasmuch as, goods were supplied by the respondent No. 1 at the said business place of petitioner. Petitioner had issued cheque drawn on its banker namely State Bank of Patiala, Bassi Pattnam. Thus, Delhi courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as no cause of action had arisen in Delhi. Merely because cheque had been deposited by the respondent No. 1 with its banker at Delhi for encashment and notice of demand had been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the same is a disputed question of fact which needs to be proved during the trial. In nutshell, contention of counsel for respondent No. 1 is that complaint case cannot be quashed. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. Perusal of complaint, a copy whereof has been placed on record, clearly shows that specific averment has been made to the effect that cheque had been issued and handed over to respondent No. 1 at New Delhi. In para 5 of the complaint, it is stated that "... it is pertinent to mention that cheque was issued and handed over to the concerned person of the complainant at New Delhi." This averment has been reiterated in para 12 of the complaint wherein it is stated "... The cheque was issued and han....