Enter College / University / City name:

Home > Haryana > Education > Hisar > Vision International College of Education Dhansu


Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar, Haryana


Contact


Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar, Haryana
Address: Plot / Street / Area
NEAR DEER PARK
Dhansu Village
Hisar (District Hisar)
Haryana, India
Pin Code : 125005


Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana is a recognised institute / college. Status: Self-financing Co-Edu. Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana is managed by Society: Pandit Surja Ram Charitable Trust. Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana was established on / in 2007.


Principal of Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana is Dr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi (DOB 01-06-1979).

Vision International College of Education Dhansu is situated in Hisar of Haryana state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Hisar comes under Hissar Tehsil, Hisar District.

Fax # of Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana is 01662-241033.

Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana are College Phone No. +91-92543-41296, 90345-24336, 90345-24337, 9416043396.

email ID(s) is Vision International College of Education Dhansu Hisar Haryana

Website of Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana is http://www.panditsrm.com/.


Contact Details of Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana are : 01662-241033
Chairman Phone No. +91-94162-41296, 92157-41296, 72061-15444
Principal Phone No +91-94160-43396, 92156-43396, 72061-16777

Trustees:
Ishwar Singh Godara S/o Sh Mange Ram Godara
Ram Niwas Saini S/o Chandu Lal Saini
Mrs Seema Saini D/o Hardayal Singh

Location:
Vision International College of Education is located on the Dhansu Road, Hisar. It is approx. 6 Kms. From the Bus Stand Hisar.



Courses

Number of seats in Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana is 100.
Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana runs course(s) in Education stream(s).
B Ed
D.Ed

Approval details: Vision International College of Education Dhansu is affiliated with Chaudhary Ranbir Singh University (CRSU), Jind (Haryana)



Media coverage of Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana, Haryana

SEEMA SAINI AND ANOTHER Vs VIJAY BHALLA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 09.03.2011

1. CRM M 7269 of 2011
Seema Saini and another ........ Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Bhalla .......Respondent

2. CRM M 7311 of 2011
Seema Saini and another ........ Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Bhalla .......Respondent

3. CRM M 7328 of 2011
Seema Saini and another ........ Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Bhalla .......Respondent

4. CRM M 7329 of 2011
Seema Saini and another ........ Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Bhalla .......Respondent

Coram:
Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

Present:
Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioners

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
The aforementioned four petitions are being disposed of by one common order as the parties and issue involved is same.

For convenience, the facts are being taken from CRM M 7269 of 2011.

The complainant/respondent has filed the complaint, alleging therein, that the petitioner being members of Society namely, The Hisar Santoshi Cooperative Non Agricultural Thrift and Credit Society Ltd, allured the complainant to open saving account and deposit money having excess rate of interest. Accordingly, the complainant opened two accounts bearing Sr. No. 1418 and 1404 and has been maintaining both accounts and making deposits. It is also alleged that meanwhile good relations developed between the accused and complainant and accused gained his blind faith.

On account of those relations, the accused in the month of May 2010 approached him and put forth their requirement of money for their business purpose and demanded a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and he disbursed the said amount to them in cash. Complainant further stated that in the month of July, 2010, being in need of money for his personal affairs, the complainant demanded approximately Rs.16-17 lacs i.e. Rs.9 lacs advanced by him as friendly loan and Rs.7 lacs deposits lying in his accounts maintained by the society. Accordingly, the accused in discharge of their pre existing legally enforceable liability issued the cheque No. 079787 dated 28.07.2010 for Rs.4,50,000/- and assured him to make payment of remaining amount later on within 2-3 days and further, issued cheque NO. 79788 dated 30.07.2010 for Rs.4,50,000/-. After taking over the cheques, complainant further
demanded the amount of Rs.7 lacs out of his deposits in the accounts maintained by the Society, the accused on 31.07.2010 and 03.08.2010, issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and 2,50,000/- Complainant presented the same for encashment and it was returned unpaid by the Bankers of the petitioners with endorsement 'funds insufficient' vide memo dated 13.011.2010. After receiving the memo, the complainant got served a legal notice for the payment of amount under cheque. No payment was made in spite of the legal notice. Accordingly, the respondent/complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Thereafter, the respondent/complainant led preliminary evidence and placed on record cheque No. 079788 dated 30.07.2010, memo dated 11.08.2010 and 13.11.2010 and legal notice dated 04.12.2010. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.01.2011, the JMIC, Sirsa, summoned the petitioners.

While challenging the aforesaid complaint as well as the summoning order, learned counsel for the petitioners raised two fold arguments.

Firstly, the learned JMIC, Sirsa has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Rather, the court at Hisar has territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the present complaint cannot continue or proceed before the Court of JMIC, Sirsa. It was contended that the respondent/complainant has deliberately, in order to exert pressure on petitioners, filed the complaint in the Court at Sirsa, whereas, the
respondent/complainant is having the accounts maintained by the society at Hisar and the cheque in question were issued at Hisar. Even the cheques were issued at Hisar and which were to be drawn at Hisar. The said cheque was returned back by the Bank situated at Hisar and even notice was served upon the petitioner at Hisar and it was supposed to make payment by the petitioner at Hisar and in this way no cause of action arises as per the allegations levelled in the complaint at Hisar and not even partial cause of action took place at Sirsa.

Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd and another v. M/s National Panasonic India Ltd reported as 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 458.

Secondly, there is no pleading in the complaint that as to how the petitioners are vicariously liable being the member of the Managing Committee of the Society. It is nowhere mentioned in the complaint that the petitioners were responsible for the conduct of the business of the society or its function. Further, the petitioners were not under any liability to make the payment to the complainant in their personal capacity and that even as per the averments in the complaint, the society was under liability to make the payment. The cheques were issued from the account of Vision International College of Education which is nothing to do with the affairs of the Society and that there is decision by the Management of Vision International
College of Education to own the alleged liability of the Society. Therefore, no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the present petitioners for the issuance of the said cheques of Vision International College of Education.

Heard.

While raising the first argument that the Court at Sirsa have no jurisdiction, reliance is placed on on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd and another v. M/s National Panasonic India Ltd reported as 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 458. In that case, the facts as recorded were as under :-

Appellants and respondent entered into a business transaction. Appellant is a resident of Chandigarh. He carries on business in Chandigarh.

The cheque in question admittedly was issued at Chandigarh. Complainant also has a branch office at Chandigarh although his Head Office is said to be at Delhi. It is stated that the cheque was presented at Chandigarh. However, it is in dispute as to whether the said cheque was sent for collection to Delhi. The cheque was dishnoured also at Chandigarh. However, the complainant-respondent issued a notice upon the appellant asking him to pay the amount from New Delhi.

Admittedly, the said notice was served upon the respondent at Chandigarh. On failure on the part of the appellant to pay the amount within a period of 15 days
from the date of communication of the said letter, a complaint petition was filed at Delhi.

While clarifying the situation further, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held in para 25 as under :-

25. We cannot, as things stand today, be oblivious of the fact that a banking institution holding several cheques signed by the same borrower cannot only present the cheque for its encashment at four different places but also may serve notices from four different places so as to enable it to file four complaint cases at four different places. This only causes grave harassment to the accused. It is, therefore, necessary in a case of this nature to strike a balance between the
right of the complainant and the right of an accused v is-a-vis the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It was in the context as above that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Chandigarh Court had jurisdiction and not the Delhi Court as sending of notice from Delhi alone will not give Delhi Court a jurisdiction.

Therefore, Hon'ble the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the notice was issued from Delhi only to harass the accused and to create evidence for the purpose of jurisdiction. The observation in M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. (supra) does not exclude the place where the Drawer's bank is situated.

In fact, in the case of M/s Harman Electronics(supra) also, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that a balance between the rights of the arties will have to be watched.

Thus, it cannot be said that only the place where the drawee bank is situated will have jurisdiction or vice versa Whereas, the issue, at hand, with respect to territorial jurisdiction of Courts relating to offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act was also the subject matter in the case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankarana Vaidhyan Balan and another reported as 1999 (7) Supreme Court Cases 510. The precise question raised is evident from para 11 of the said judgment :-

11. We fail to comprehend as to how the trial court could have found so regarding the jurisdiction question. Under Section 177 of the Code “every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried in a court within whose jurisdiction it was committed.” The locality where the Bank (which dishonoured the cheque) is situated cannot be regarded as the sole criterion to determine the place of offence.

It must be remembered that offence under Section 138 would not be completed with the dishonour of the cheque. It attains completion only with the failure of the drawer of the cheque to pay the cheque amount within the expiry of 15 days mentioned in clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. It is normally difficult to fix up a particular locality as the place of failure to pay the amount covered by the cheque. A place, for that purpose, would depend upon a variety of factors. It can either be at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the place where either of them carries on business. Hence, the difficulty to fix up any particular locality as the place of occurrence for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

The same was necessarily answered in paras 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment :-

14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the said offence; (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4)
giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the
receipt of the notice.

15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But a concatenation of all the above five in a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Code. In this context a
reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below:

178.(a)-(c)

(d) where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, It may be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

16. Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

This Court in similar circumstances in CRM M 2456 of 2011, decided on 31.01.2011, held as under :-

If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the only place that has the jurisdiction is where the drawee bank is situated, it would lead to
erroneous situation. The aggrieved party, who is the complainant, besides facing harassment of cheque having been dishonoured, will have to go through a legal
and other communication and physical travel hazards of filing a case at a place where the drawee bank is situated.

The judgments as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Shri Ishar Alloys Steels Ltd. (supra) and M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. (supra), no doubt, have held that the Courts, where the drawee bank is situated, has the jurisdiction but at the same time it has nowhere held that it is only the said
place where the drawee bank is situated that has the jurisdiction and no other place. At the same time, it is also evident that sending of notice from a particular
place alone shall not give that place a jurisdiction.

However, the said observation nowhere excludes the place where the bank of the drawer is situated. Thus, a balance has to be struck in the facts of each case.

Applying the test laid down in the case of K. Bhaskaran, the Courts at Faridabad also have the jurisdiction to decide the complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.

Thus, in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, territorial jurisdiction depends on the facts of each case. A balance has to be struck keeping in mind the rights of the parties. The safeguard is to ensure that a cheque is not deposited in a particular bank only to create territorial jurisdiction.

In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant/respondent is a permanent resident of Sirsa, where he resides along with his other family members. He is a practicing Advocate at District Courts, Sirsa. He maintains his account in the Vijaya Bank at Sirsa.

He deposited the said cheques in his Bank account at Sirsa. Notice with respect to the dishonouring of the cheque was also received at Sirsa. Legal notice was also sent from Sirsa. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent resides else where but he still deposited the cheques at Sirsa.

In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that complaint was filed at Sirsa only to harass the petitioners. As such, the Courts at Sirsa have jurisdiction.

The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no averment as to how the petitioners are liable and nor are they responsible for the conduct of business, also has no merit in as much as in para 2 of the complaint specific allegation has been made against petitioner/accused No. 1 and 2 as under:-

Accused No.1 in the capacity as Secretary and accused No. 2 being the member of the Committee namely the Hisar Santoshi Coop. NATC Society Limited Mahajan Chowk and near Chandu Karyana Store, Jhajpur Road, Hisar, allured the complainant for the deposit of the amounts in the Saving accounts, got opened with their society on payment of excess rate of interest by them.

It was further mentioned in para 4 of the complaint that:-

accused in discharge of their pre-existing legally enforceable liability issued the cheque bearing No. 079787 dated 28.07.2010 for Rs.4,50,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Branch at Hisar out of their account No. CBCA 01000045 and handed over the same to the complainant and assured the complainant to make
payment of remaining amount, out of total Rs.9,00,000/- later on within 2/3 days, hence as per the assurance given by the accused, the complainant demanded the above said amount after three days and then the accused in discharge of their remaining preexisting liability of Rs.4,50,000/- lying pending/due out of total Rs.9,00,000/- issued cheque No. 079788 dated 30.07.2010 for Rs.4,50,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Branch at Hisar out of your account No. CBCA01000045.

As such, the arguments that the petitioners are not liable and that the said cheques pertains to the Vision International College of Education and the same is nothing to do with the affairs of the Society, cannot be gone into by this Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The same is a matter of proof and evidence to be recorded during trial.

In view the foregoing discussion, the present petitions are dismissed being devoid of merits.

Copy of the order be placed on each of the connected files.

(Nirmaljit Kaur)
Judge

Summary: Vision International College of Education Dhansu, Hisar Haryana website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.