Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – S. 138 - Loan agreement executed at Hyderabad - Cheque was issued at Hyderabad – Respondent/Complainant Financial institutions have their offices at Hyderabad - Entire cause of action for filing the present complaints under S. 138 has accrued at Hyderabad – Yet the complaint has been submitted before the Court at Calcutta, Jaipur and Gurugram only to harass the petitioners - Stay of further proceedings. [#PLRonline]

PRINT / DOWNLOAD PDF

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Versus

INCRED FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD (ERSTRWHILE KNOWN AS VISU LEASING FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED) – Respondent(s)

Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).68/2024

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.19156/2024-EX-PARTE STAY )

WITH

Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).66/2024 (II) (Item No. 1619)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.17897/2024-EX-PARTE STAY and IA

No.17898/2024-EXEMPTION FROM filing O.T. )

Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).65/2024 (II-B)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.17852/2024-EX-PARTE STAY)

WITH

Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 70/2024 (II-B) (Item No.

1621)

FOR ADMISSION and IA No.19854/2024-EX-PARTE STAY )

WITH

T.P.(Crl.) No. 75/2024 (II-B)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.20458/2024-EX-PARTE STAY)

T.P.(Crl.) No. 69/2024 (II-B)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.19823/2024-EX-PARTE STAY)

WITH

Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).64/2024 (II-B)(Item No. 1622)

( FOR ADMISSION and IA No.17786/2024-STAY APPLICATION )

Date : 29-01-2024 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vishal Arun, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Mr. Lakkaraju Ashok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ekta Swarup, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, AOR Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. P. S. P. Suresh, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Mr. Lakkaraju Ashok Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Ekta Swarup, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, AOR For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject loan agreement consequent upon which the cheque was issued by the petitioners, was executed at Hyderabad and the respondents have their offices at Hyderabad. The entire cause of action for filing the present complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 has accrued at Hyderabad yet the complaint has been submitted before the Court at Calcutta, Jaipur and Gurugram only to harass the petitioners.

Issue notice. Tag with Transfer Petition(Crl.) No.26/2024 In the meantime, there shall be stay of further proceedings in:-

1. CS No.29612 of 20

2. Complaint No.8660 of 20

3. C.S. No. 18673 of 20

4. C.S. No.108859 of 20

5. C.S. No. 54120 of 20

6. NACT No.32208 of 2022, titled as “M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs. Venu Akula”, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Gurugram, Haryana.

7. C.S. No.107813 of 20

Tags: NIA S. 138

[SC] CPC O. 39 R. 1 - When a mandatory injunction is granted at the interim stage much more than a mere prima facie case has to be made out - Revisional jurisdiction under section 115 CPC is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only - CPC S. 115 [ ID# 3310205]

Related Posts

NIA S. 138 – Compounding – Though the complainant has been duly compensated by the accused yet the complainant does not agree for the compounding of the offence, the courts cannot compel the complainant to give ‘consent’ for compounding of the matter – On facts – Quashed.

[SC] NIA S. 138 – Loan availed at P – In order to harass the petitioner, the cheque was presented in the banks Branch at C – Proceedings can not continue at C. [213 PLR 612]

NIA S. 118(a) – When the pronote and receipt have been proved – Plaintiff is not further required to prove his capacity to make the said payment. (ID# 214001)

Welcome Back!

Create New Account!

Retrieve your password

Save PLRonline.in APP!