Latest judgment of three judges bench of SC headed by CJI held that Complaint for Dis-honour of Cheque [S.138 NI ACT] is not maintainable before the expiry of 15 Days Notice Period. Remedy is not to re-present but to file fresh Complaint. Jt in Narsingh Das Tapadia (2000)Overruled. I think this verdict may affect the Dhsrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs State of Maharastra and anothers regarding teritorial jurisdiction. In the said case SC held that dishonour is offence and so complaint can be filed before the court where dishonour occured. But by the above quoted judgment offence is committed only when the drawer failes to pay the bounced cheque amount. That being so prior to that how offence can be determined and Territorial Jurisdiction can be determined. In my view only after commission of offence Territorial Jurisdiction can be ascertained. So as per this judgment where amount intended or expected to pay the chq amt in compliance of demand notice is the proper place of commission offence i. e. Place of residence of complainant is the proper place of commission offence. Whether am I correct or not pls comment
Posted on: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:25:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015