Times Business Solutions Ltd v. Provizor

rz t:- e f-27, 29, 32, 40, 42, 43, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59 &, 79 %

20.09.2014 Prescnt: it4. V.f. Shailendra fbr the petitioner. CRL. REV.P. Nos. 585/20L0" 587/2010. 590/2010. 598/2010. 600t2010. 60112010, 61012010. 6ll/2010. 61212010. 616/2010, 6t7t20tti & 629t2010 *

¶1'l'hcse revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18tl' Muy, 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(Act, for short). By the impugned order dated 18d'May, 2010, the learned trial court has dismissed the complaints, inter:alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notice under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed postal receipts issued by post office for sending notices under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act. He relies upon the several judgments of the Supreme Court including V.Raja Kumari Vs. P.Subbarnma Naidu and Anotlter, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and D.Vinod Shivappa Vs. Nonda Belliappo, (2006) 6 SCC 456. He relies upon the Evidence Act and the General clauses Act. It is submitted that arguments were heard on.the question of tenitorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the complaint and arguments were not addressed on the question of seruice of notice. In tlris connection, my attention is drawn to the order dated 23'd March ,2(rlti whcrein it is recorded that the counsel for the complainant-petitioner seeks time to argue the maller on territorial jurisdiction. As noticed above, the impugned order was passed on 18il'Muy, 2010.In the impugned order, it was noticed and observed by the trial court that the question of tenitorial iurisdiction was not being examined in view of the fact that the complaint was being disrnissed on the ground ilrat thclc was no proof of * 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. ii. ^)/ delivery/service of notice issued under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of thc Act.

¶3In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned ordcr dated 18tl' Muy, 2010 is hereby ,.tfu*dttt" matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for fresh 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 court will pass an order without being influenced with the observations made in this order.

¶4The petitioner will appear before the trial court on 4th October, 2010. . The petitions are accordingly disposed of. SEPTEMBER 20,2OIO VKR \r 't( 4)/1 //q SANJIYKHANNA. J. s