Times Business Solutios Ltd v. Jiban North East Solutions

,i i- ?.0. 22, 25, 36, 6C, 63 & 65 y6 20.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for tlie petitioner. 'l CRL. REV.P. Nos. 578i2010. 580/2010. 583/2010. 594/2010. 61812010. 62112010 & 62312010

¶1'I'hcse revision petitions are directecl against the orcler <lated 18tl' Mtr1,, 2010 rcfusing to take cognizance and summon ther accuscd in cornplaints filed under Section 138 of thc Negotiable Instrumont Act, lB8l.(Act, lor short). By the impugned ordcr dated 18tr'May,2010, the lcalled trial courl has disrnissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivcry ofnoticc under Section t38(b) oftheActhas beenplaced on rccord.

¶2Learncd counsel fol the petitioncr submits that the pctitioner had filcd postal rcccipts issucd by post office fol sending notices undcr Scotion 138 proviso clause (b) of thc Act. I-Ie relics upon thc several judgmcnts trl thc Srtplctnc Corul including V.Raia Kumuri Vs. ]'.Subhoronzfl Naidu oncl Another, Q_p94) S__$CCJI!. and D.Vinod Sltivappa Vs. Nanda Ilellioppu, (?09-61_0--LC-C -{16-. IIe relies upon the Evidence A.ct and thc (ionclerl clauscs Act. My attention is also drarvn to the ordcr shcct dated 16tl'April, 2010, which recorcls that 1.ne arguments $'cre hcarci on tlic point of terrilorial jLrrisdiction and the cascr vras listed for order on the point of tcrlitorial ju'isclic.tion on 15tl' May. 2010. Orcler was not passcd on '5tll, May,20lti and.it was put up for ordcrs on l8'hMay, 2010-As notiJed abovc, thc irnpugnocl order was passcd on 18'l'May,2010. In the irnpugncd orclcr, it was noticed and bbservod b1' thc trial coutt that thc cprcstion of lerritorial jurisdiction was not being cxamined in vicw of the Inct that thc complaint was bcing disrnissed on the ground that there rvas no prot>f of delivery/seruice of notice issued under Scction 138 proviso olause (b) of the Act. rs -a Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. /i

¶3In view of thc aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18tl' ann'{) t" Muy, 2010 is hereby set f and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for fi'esh hearing. Petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments cited before me before the trial court. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the trial courl will pass an order without being influenced with the observations made in this order.

¶4Tho pctitioner will appear before the trial court on 4tl' October', 20tti. 'I'he petitions are accordingly disposed of. /4C- .lt / / t( SANJIV KIIANNA. J. SEPTEMBER 2O.2OIO VKR l' b