In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that in case of dishonor of cheque, merely because the notice was put into post by the lawyer who has his residence or place of practice at a different centre, such place cannot claim jurisdiction?

Solution (By Examveda Team)

Jurisdiction in Cases of Cheque Dishonor:
In cases of cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, jurisdiction is an important factor. The court where the case can be filed is usually determined by where the cheque was presented, dishonored, or where the notice of dishonor was issued.

Correct Answer: Option B – National Panasonic v. Harman Electronics
In the case of National Panasonic v. Harman Electronics, the Supreme Court of India ruled that merely because a legal notice regarding the dishonor of a cheque was sent from a particular location, it does not grant that place jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Explanation:
   >>   The case involved a cheque dishonor dispute where the complainant’s lawyer sent a legal notice from a different city and then claimed jurisdiction based on that location.
   >>   The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction cannot be determined solely based on the place where the notice was dispatched by the lawyer.
   >>   Instead, jurisdiction is determined by other factors, such as where the cheque was presented for payment, where it was dishonored, or where the payee maintains their account.
   >>   This ruling was significant in preventing forum shopping, where complainants might try to file cases in a location of their convenience rather than the legally appropriate place.

Thus, the correct answer is Option B – National Panasonic v. Harman Electronics.