TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt petition arises in the following context. The appellant is a company incorporated under Section 25 of Companies Act, 1956 and is sponsored by the Government of India. It was formed, inter alia, with the object of promoting exports of readymade garments from India to various parts of the world. It is also assigned the task of administering the Garments Policy issued by the Government of India. As a part of its mandate, all persons exporting garments from India to the rest of the world are required to be registered with the appellant. 3. The respondent is a partnership firm registered with the appellant under Registration Certificate No.37114. The respondent issued seven cheques: cheque bearing number 566352 for a sum of Rs.29,200/-; cheque bearing no. 566353 for Rs.2,77,980/-; cheque bearing no. 566354 for Rs.5,40,000/-; cheque bearing no. 566355 for Rs.4,17,980/-; cheque bearing no. 566356 for Rs.4,00,000/-; cheque bearing no. 566357 for Rs.5,17,980/-; and cheque bearing no. 566358 for Rs.1,86,060/- (all dated 1st June, 2003), for a total sum of Rs.23,69,200/- for revalidation of its Past Performance Entitlement (PPE), which is permissible under the Garment Export Entitlement P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion where the offence was committed - that is, where the cheque was dishonoured - could entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Thus, the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, within whose limits the bank on which the cheque is drawn is situated, would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. The court clarified that 'regardless of whether evidence has been led before the Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage, whether by affidavit or oral statement, the Complaint will be maintainable only at the place the cheque stands dishonoured'. 9. Accordingly, the Ld. MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 25th August, 2014 directed return of complaint in original along with all documents in original after taking their certified copies. The appellant physically collected the complaint on 13th October, 2015. Thereafter, the appellant re-filed the complaint before the court having jurisdiction, Ld.MM (NI Act)-01, South East, Saket, on 4th November, 2015. On 9th November, 2015, the appellant/complainant was granted an opportunity to file an appropriate application to explain the delay however, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that there was no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... complaint was without considering the order dated 29th July, 2015 passed by the Supreme Court. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said cheques were not issued as consideration but as security cheques for due performance and the same could be encashed only on the happening of certain events, that is, non-utilisation of quota. He submitted that there was no enforceable liability when the cheques were presented and therefore, the respondent had not committed any offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The learned counsel also countered the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. He submitted that by an order dated 25th August, 2014, the Court directed that the complaint be returned and it gave an opportunity to the appellant to re-file the same within a period of thirty days. Therefore, the appellant had no discretion when to seek physical return of the complaint and re-file the same. The appellant could not defer re-filing of the complaint awaiting the disposal of its SLP by the Supreme Court, as the court had expressly indicated that the trial was not stayed. Reasons and Conclusion 15. At the outset, it is relevant to observe that there is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn." 17. In view of the above, it was not open for the appellant to file its complaint before the learned M.M., Patiala House Courts, who did not have territorial jurisdiction over the place where the respondent's bank was located (that is, Defence Colony, New Delhi). 18. However, the Supreme Court, in order to obviate and avoid any legal complications, directed that all complaint cases where proceedings had reached the stage of Section 145 (2) of the NI Act or beyond - that is, cases where persons giving evidence had been summoned and examined - would be deemed to be transferred from the court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction to the court where the complaint had been filed. Thus, in such cases, notwithstanding that the complaint had been filed before a Court which did not have the territorial jurisdiction, the proceedings would not be impeded. This is so, because the said Court would now possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint by virtue of the same being transferred to it in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. 19. Admittedly, in this case, the complaint had not reached the stage of Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it was awaiting any further orders from the Supreme Court. Clearly, once the proceedings before the Trial Court stood revived, the appellant was bound to follow the orders passed in those proceedings, unless the same were stayed. 23. It is also relevant to note that the appellant did not refile the complaint within the period of thirty days of the final decision of the Supreme Court in its appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 1678/2012). The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 29th July, 2015; however, the appellant had re-filed the complaint on 04th November, 2015, that is, about a hundred days after the decision of the Supreme Court. Although, the appellant states that it had taken steps for collecting the original file immediately after the Supreme Court had delivered its decision on 29th July, 2015, there is no material on record to indicate the date on which the application for receiving the original complaint was made. 24. The contention that since the original complaint was received on 13th October, 2015, the same was within the period of thirty days as stipulated by the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathore (supra), is bereft of any merit. The complaint was returned by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under subsection (1), and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. (3) If, on the date of the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different course, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 before which the first case was filed and ....