# SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES & ORS v. METSO MINERAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD

- **Citation:** [2014] 9 S.C.R. 279
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-08-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2014
- **Bench:** T.S. Thakur, Vikramajit Sen
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shivgiri-associates-ors-v-metso-mineral-india-pvt-ltd-30068
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A
- B
Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction - To entertain
complaint u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint
filed in the court at Gurgaon (Haryana) - Maintainability of -
C
Held: The courts at Gurgaon did not possess territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings u/s. 138, because
legal notice of demand had emanated from the city of
Bangalore - Complaint returned to the complainant for refiling
the same in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka -
o
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 .
. Respondent-complainant filed petition uls. 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court at
Gurgaon, Haryana. The complaint related to the dishonor
E
of the cheque drawn on the Bank at Bangalore and which
. was presentedror encashment to another Bank at
Bangalore. When the Court at Gurgaon issued summons,
the appellant challenged the same before High Court.
· High Court dismissed the case of the appellant holding
that the courts at Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to
entertain the complalnt. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: Issuance of the notice has relevance to the
G
question of criminal territorial jurisdiction under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the present case,
' the dishonoured cheques were drawn on the Appellant's
I Bank at Bangalore. Subsequently, on presentation of the
279
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A cheques for encashment by the Respondent through its
Bankers at Bangalore, they were dishonoured. [Para 2]
[281-F-G]
2. The courts at Gurgaon do not possess territorial
8 jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act solely
because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a legal
notice of demand has emanated from that city. The
Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent
C for refiling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore,
Karnataka. If the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate
Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to
have been filed within limitation. [Para 4] [282-C-O]
.
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra
D (2014) 9 SCALE 97 - relied on.
K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an (1999) _ _7
SCC 510: 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271; Harman Electrof:lics
Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private.Limited
E (2009) 1 SCC 720: 2008 (17) SCR 487 - referred to.
F
Case Law Reference:
(2014) 9 SCALE 97
relied on
1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271
referred to
2008 (17 ) SCR 487
referred to
Para 2
Para 2
Para 2

## Text

[2014] 9 S.C.R. 279
SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES & ORS.
V.
METSO MINERAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2014)
AUGUST 20, 2014
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.)
A
- B
Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction - To entertain
complaint u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint
filed in the court at Gurgaon (Haryana) - Maintainability of -
C
Held: The courts at Gurgaon did not possess territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings u/s. 138, because
legal notice of demand had emanated from the city of
Bangalore - Complaint returned to the complainant for refiling
the same in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka -
o
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 .
. Respondent-complainant filed petition uls. 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court at
Gurgaon, Haryana. The complaint related to the dishonor
E
of the cheque drawn on the Bank at Bangalore and which
. was presentedror encashment to another Bank at
Bangalore. When the Court at Gurgaon issued summons,
the appellant challenged the same before High Court.
· High Court dismissed the case of the appellant holding
that the courts at Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to
entertain the complalnt. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: Issuance of the notice has relevance to the
G
question of criminal territorial jurisdiction under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the present case,
' the dishonoured cheques were drawn on the Appellant's
I Bank at Bangalore. Subsequently, on presentation of the
279
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
A cheques for encashment by the Respondent through its
Bankers at Bangalore, they were dishonoured. [Para 2]
[281-F-G]
2. The courts at Gurgaon do not possess territorial
8 jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act solely
because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a legal
notice of demand has emanated from that city. The
Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent
C for refiling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore,
Karnataka. If the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate
Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to
have been filed within limitation. [Para 4] [282-C-O]
.
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra
D (2014) 9 SCALE 97 - relied on.
K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an (1999) _ _7
SCC 510: 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271; Harman Electrof:lics
Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private.Limited
E (2009) 1 SCC 720: 2008 (17) SCR 487 - referred to.
F
Case Law Reference:
(2014) 9 SCALE 97
relied on
1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271
referred to
2008 (17 ) SCR 487
referred to
Para 2
Para 2
Para 2
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1771 of 2014.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2013 of the
H
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Misc. Case No. 32999 of 2010.
Jayant Bhushan, Dhruv Mehta, Madhav Khurana, Diksha
SHIVGIRI ASSOCIATES v. METSO MINERALS (INDIA)
281
PVT. LTD.
Rai, G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis Mohd., B.R. Pandey, L.K.
A
Pandey, Raghav Chadha, P.V. Yogeswaran, Munawwar
Naseem, Sameer Abhayankar, Nitin Khare for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single
Judge ofthe High Court of Punjab & Haryana holding that since
the notice as contemplated in Section 138 of the Negotiable c
· Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act'), had been
dispatched from Gurgaon, Haryana and additionally, a
response thereto was dispatched to and received at Gurgaon,
Courts at Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to entertain and
c:l_ecide the Complaint. In the impugned Judgment, several o
, precedents have been mentioned and decisions of this Court,
namely, K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Ba/an (1999) 7
SCC 510 and Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National
Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 have been
·analysed and discussed. We need not dilate on this issue
beyond mentioning and applying the recent decision dated
01.08.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009 titled
Dashrath Rupsi.ngh Rathod v. State of Maharasthra. In view of
the deliberations in Dashrath Rupsingh, the Appeal is allowed.
It is no longer arguable that the issuance of the notice has
relevance to the question of criminal territorial jurisdiction under
Section 138 of the NI Act. In the case in hand, the dishonoured
cheques were drawn on the Appellant's Bank, namely, Axis
Bank, Bangalore. Subsequently, on presentation of the cheques
E
F
for encashment by the Respondent through its Bankers, namely,
Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore, they were dishonoured.
G
. It is interesting to note, even though it may not be relevant for
the present considerations, that the Respondent has filed· a suit
for recovery of money •in New Delhi., repeatedly reiterating that
tne ca\Jse of action arose solely and squarely in New DelhL
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 9 S.C.R.
' A
3. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class (Special Court), District Gurgaon, Haryana, on 14.6.2010
issued Summons to the Appellant. The Appellant thereupon
approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh,
which passed the impugned order. On 23.9.2013, this Court
B issued notice and also ordered that proceedings before the
Trial Court shall remain stayed. It is evident, therefore, that
evidence, post-summoning, has not been recorded ...
. 4. It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal,
C as Courts at Gurgaon do not possess terrjiorial jurisdiction to
entertain the present proceedings under~ection 138 of the NI
Act solely because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a
legal notice of demand has emanated from that city. The
Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent for
refilling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka. As
D mentioned in Dashrath Rupsingh, if the Complaint is re-filed in
the appropriate Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be
deemed to have been filed within limitation. The interim orders
stand recalled, accordingly.
E
5. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.