Allahabad HC: Pension Can’t Be Withheld For Incident That Occurred Four Years Prior to Retirement  ||  Cal. HC: Jurisdiction Can’t Be Assumed By Consumer Forum When Arbitration Prescribed By Special Law  ||  Calcutta High Court: Court Not Merely Obligated to Appoint Arbitrator u/s 11(6) of A&C Act  ||  Supreme Court: Suit of Injunction Not Maintainable if Plaintiff Fails to Prove Title Over Property  ||  SC: Deemed Income of Homemaker Can’t Be Less Than Daily Wages Prescribed Under Minimum Wages Act  ||  Ori HC: Can’t Recover Excess Payment Made to Emp. From Leave Encashment Benefits Post Retirement  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Use Senior Citizens Act For Purposes of Property Dispute  ||  Central Government Modifies Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022  ||  Delhi High Stays Judgement Related to Investigation Under PMLA  ||  SC: Circumstantial Evidence Has to Be Supported With Other Evidence in Order to Make it Strong    

M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh - (Supreme Court) (24 Nov 2015)

Jurisdiction vested where cheque delivered for collection


The Supreme Court accepted the explanation that pursuant to the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, “the place where a cheque is delivered for collection, i.e. the branch of the bank of the payee or holder…where the drawee maintains an account, would be determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction.” It noted that on the issue of jurisdiction, Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would take precedence over the Code of Criminal Procedure. It distinguished a previous ruling in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra which would have impeded territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings in the instant case.

Relevant : Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0655/2014


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved