a)The petitioner had taken a loan from the respondent-company for its business purposes. It had issued a cheque (drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Bangalore) against repayment of the loan amount. However, the cheque was dishonoured when presented for encashment to ING Vysya Bank, Gurgaon.
b)The respondent-company issued a statutory notice to the petitioner and eventually filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate at Gurgaon under section 138 of the NI Act.
c)The Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioners to face the trial. The petitioner, filed the instant petition seeking transfer of the complaint from Gurgaon to the competent Court at Bangalore.
d)The Petitioner contended that the Court located at Gurgaon had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, especially when the cheque was issued and dishonoured at Bangalore and the offence, if any, was committed only at Bangalore.
The Supreme Court held as under:
1)The only reason the complainant claimed jurisdiction for the Court at Gurgaon was the fact that the complainant-respondent had issued the statutory notices relating to dishonour of the cheque from Gurgaon. The issue of a statutory notice could not by itself confer jurisdiction upon the Court to take cognizance of an offence under section 138.
2)Where cheque issued by petitioner was dishonoured at Bangalore, Court of Gurgaon could not have jurisdiction to entertain complaint simply because complainant-respondent had issued statutory notices relating to dishonour of cheque from Gurgaon.
3)Accordingly, the petition was to be allowed and complaint was to be transferred from the Court of Gurgaon, to the Court of competent jurisdiction of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore who would try the case himself or transfer the same to any other Court competent to try the same. – SREE MAHESH STATIONARIES V. INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.  49 TAXMANN.COM 67 (SC)