Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

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

Decided
20 August 2014
Judges listed
T.S. THAKUR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 279 · 2014 INSC 552
Also cited as
  • (2014) 12 SCC 366 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 281, margin B

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 · 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 , 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 for encashment by the Respondent through its Bankers, namely, Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore, they were dishonoured. . 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

p. 281, margin B

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 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 ...

p. 282

4

It is in these circumstances that we allow the Appeal, 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 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.

p. 282, margin B

5

The parties shall bear their respective costs.

p. 282, margin E