RANJANA DESAI, J.

1. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside of C.C. No.848/SS/2009 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The petitioner claims to belong to District Ernakulam, Kerala. Respondent 1 - Voltas Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The said company, inter alia, is engaged in the busienss of providing premier air-conditioner and engineering services.

2. On 9/5/2007, respondent 1 filed the aforesaid complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Ballard Pier, Mumbai (for convenience, Mumbai court”) against M/s. Aswathy Enterprises, Mr. Prabath G.K. and the petitioner as partners of M/s Aswathy Enterprises. In short, it is the case of respondent 1 as stated in the complaint that the accused placed order for supply of airconditioners with them and pursuant to the said order airconditioners were sold, supplied and delivered as required by the accused. The air-conditioners were duly received by the accused. According to respondent 1, invoices were raised which were duly accepted by the accused. Towards the payment and discharge of their liability, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.417680 dated 1/3/2007 for Rs.3,51,551/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Angamaly Branch, Ernakulam District, Kerala. Respondent 1 presented the cheque for clearing with their bankers – Citibank, D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai on 7/3/2007. However, the said cheque was returned unpaid and dishonoured by the banker of the accused i.e. Syndicate Bank vide their memo dated 9/3/2007 with remark “account closed”. Respondent 1 vide its notice dated 16/3/2007 addressed to the accused recorded the dishonour of the said cheque which was issued by the accused and called upon the accused to make payment of Rs.3,51,551/- along with bank charges at their office at D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai. This notice was received by the accused on or about 26/3/2007. Instead of making payment, the accused vide their reply dated 16/4/2007 denied their liability. On these facts, respondent 1 filed the aforementioned complaint stating inter alia that the accused had committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”) and requested that the process be issued.

3. In the complaint, respondent 1 stated that the Mumbai court has jurisdiction because its banker is situated at D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai where the cheque was deposited and dishonoured.

4. In this petition, the primary contention of the petitioner is that the Mumbai court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint. In fact, counsel for the petitioner has pressed only that point. In the petition, the petitioner has stated her case on merits. We are not concerned with the merits of the case and, therefore, we need not comment on it. We are only concerned with the question of jurisdiction.

5. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, it is pertinent to note that in the title of the petition, the petitioner's address is shown as “Ambattu House, Kottappady P.O., Kothamangalam, Ernakulam District, Cochin, Kerala”. The registered office of respondent 1 is shown as “Voltas House, B, 2nd floor, T.B. Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400 033”. Its Cochin address is shown as “Vidyanekethan Annexe, Providence Road, Cochin – 682 018”. To canvass the point that Mumbai court has no jurisdiction, it is stated in the petition that the entire cause of action has arisen in District Ernakulam and no part of the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai; that the dealership agreement was entered into at District Ernakulam; that when the cheque was dishonoured, notice was issued by respondent 1's lawyer at Ernakulam and the cheque was handed over in Kerala. Another statement is made that it is admitted in the complaint that all the documents were signed and executed by the respective parties at E