Proceedings initiated upon the complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 29.09.2009 by the Court of Forest Magistrate, Srinagar, are con­tended to be without jurisdiction so abuse of process of law.

2. Punjab Tractors Ltd, a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 having its head office at Phase IV, In­dustrial Area Mohali (Punjab), has merged with Mahindra & Mahindra Limited. Said company (Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.) has its registered office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai, Swaraj Division is one of its divisions and one of its places of busi­ness is at Dar-ul-Owais, Rajbagh Srinagar Kashmir. Petitioner No. 1 is proprietorship firm carrying on busi­ness of purchase and sale of Swaraj tractors and its spare parts and acces­sories whereas petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of the said firm so liable for the entire dealings of the said firm.

3. Petitioners had issued cheque bearing No. 0248568 dated 22.12.2008, drawn on Union Bank of India, Mehsana Gujarat branch for an amount of Rs. 80,00,000 (Rupees eighty lacs) in favour of erstwhile company (Punjab tractors) towards payment of the dues. The said cheque was pre­sented by the respondent No. 1 with its banker (J&K Bank Ltd. Air Cargo Branch, Srinagar), same was forwarded by the drawee bank but was returned by the drawer bank (Union Bank of In­dia, Mehsana Gujarat) with the remark "No Account". The drawee bank (J&K Bank) informed the respondent accord­ingly, so in short dishonour of cheque. The respondent No. 1 through its coun­sel issued notice of demand on 12.8.2009 from Srinagar which was replied by the petitioners. Non pay­ment of the cheque amount despite demand prompted the respondents to file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 RPC. Same has been filed by the company through its authorized representative Khurshid Ahmad Thakur in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar and same has been assigned to the Court of Forest Magistrate, Srinagar who after record­ing statement of the complainant took the cognizance for commission of of­fence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Dis­satisfied and aggrieved thereof, instant petition has been filed.

4. Various contentions regarding the cheque in question being a security furnished at the instance of Sales Executive of the petitioner company and it is only in case of default, forfeiture of the security could arise, cheque was not issued by the petitioners in dis­charge of debt or liability, then the question of reply to the legal notice, are the matters which can be looked into during the course of trial.

5. The only important question which arises for determination is as to "whether the Court at Srinagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance thereof?

6. In this connection learned coun­sel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioner No. 2, partnership concern, has been dealing with the sale and service of tractors supplied by respondent No. 1 from time to time. Pe­titioner No. 2 was appointed as dealer for sale of tractors for district Mehsana in Gujarat by respondent No. 1 having its registered office at Mohali Punjab. The business transactions were car­ried out in Chandigarh or Mehsana. The orders were placed from Mehsana for supply of tractors. The presentation of the cheque at a place where collec­tion bank is situated does not confer jurisdiction to the Court within whose jurisdiction collection bank is situated. In short, according to learned counsel, presentation of the cheque at collec­tion bank will not give jurisdiction, it is only the Court within whose juris­diction the drawee bank is situated, has jurisdiction. In support of this con­tention, reliance is placed on the judg­ment reported in (2001) 3 SCC 609.

7. The second contention is that the notice has been issued from Srinagar but giving of notice from Srinagar does not confer jurisdiction to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document