Dismissed

Meera Aralikatte Narayan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Mar 2011WP/581/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two criminal writ petitions challenging the issuance of process by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the Bombay court had jurisdiction as the complainant was situated there and the demand notice was issued from Bombay.

What did the court decide?

Both the Criminal Writ Petitions were dismissed as the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bombay had jurisdiction.

Meera Aralikatte Narayan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

SNS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.581 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.582 OF 2010

¶4

Meera A. Narayan v/s. State and Anr.

¶5

...Petitioner.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr. U.L.Shah , adv. For the Petitioner. Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP for the R.No.1.

¶8

Mr. Shounak Mehta, adv. For the Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2011.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 Both these petitions are filed by the original accused no.2 seeking to quash issuance of process in the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the complainant, who is respondent no.2 in these petitions.

¶12

2 The complainant is situated in Bombay and running business in the name and style M/s Siddharth Organic Industries, which is a proprietary concern. Accused no.1 M/s Mayuka Labs Private Ltd. is private limited company while accused no.2 Meera, who is the petitioner before this Court, is a director of that company and as per the complainant, she is responsible for the activities of the company. Since

¶13

¶14

the orders were placed by her on behalf of accd. no.1/company, the complainant/company supplied goods. Goods were received. There was no complaint from the accused persons about quantity, quality or receipt of the goods. Accused persons issued two cheques for payment of the price of goods supplied, drawn against their account maintained with State Bank of Maysore, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi. Cheques were presented to the said bank by the complainant through his banker , i.e., Indian Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch, Bombay. However, cheques were returned unpaid with endorsement 'Payment Stopped by the drawer’ . In spite of service of statutory notice, payment was not made within stipulated period and, therefore, based on the two cheques, two complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla. After recording the verification statement and perusal of the documents, the learned Magistrate issued process under Section 138 r/w section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against both the accused.

¶15

3 According to the petitioner, the Metropolitan Magistrate Bombay had no jurisdiction as accused are situated beyond the jurisdiction and as cheques were not issued nor they were payable at Bombay. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate committed

¶16

¶17

error in exercising the jurisdiction without proper verification of the complaint.

¶18

4 On perusal of the record, it appears that complainant had

¶19

verified the complaint. In his verification statement he had stated that the cheques have been signed by the present petitioner, i.e., accused no.

¶20

The contention of the petitioner that during the year 2008, she had delivered a child and, therefore, she was not looking after any business and that she is only housewife can not be accepted at least at this stage. As per the allegations made in the petition, she had delivered the child

¶21

in January, 2008 while cheques in question were issued in November, 2008. There is no reason to presume that she was not in a position to look after the business or to issue cheques in November, 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the copies of the cheques indicate that they were signed by her.

¶22

5 Even though the accused person have a factory at Hyderabad and head office at New Delhi, still Bombay Court has jurisdiction because the complainant is situated in Bombay. After the cheques were dishonoured, he issued notice from Bombay demanding payment and the payment was expected to be made at Bombay after the said notice but it was not made. Therefore, in view of the law laid down

¶23

¶24

by the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran V. Balan and

¶25

Another (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 510 , Metropolitan Magistrate at Bombay has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. I find no substance

¶26

in these petitions challenging the issuance of process.

¶27

6 In the result, both the petitions stand dismissed.

¶28

(J.H. BHATIA,J.)

Meera Aralikatte Narayan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Aralikatte Narayan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nivrutti Jagannath Parse

Dashrath @ Narayan Maruti Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganpat Shankar Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kanchan Sunil Mansingani Vs Sharmila Raj Thackery

Arati Rajnikant Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nandkumar Pandurang Worlikar Vs the State of Maharashtra (at the Instance of Anti Corruption Bureau)