WebHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dashrath Roop Singh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others", Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009, the trial of the offence must be logically restricted to the place where drawee bank is located and in the WebIn Dashrath Roop Singh Rathod Vs. State Of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129, overruling the law set forth by the Supreme Court previously, identified following ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the Act:- (I) Drawing of the cheque; ... In the case at hand, the main emphasis laid by the learned counsel for the applicant is that no illegal ...
15 landmark judgment on section 138 Negotiable Instrument
WebOct 14, 2014 · A three judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.1, holds that criminal complaints in respect of … WebSupreme Court in Dashrath Roop Singh Rathod V State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129, learned MM directed to return the complaint and supporting documents to the complainant within 30 working days from the date of order, as the drawee bank was located outside the territorial jurisdiction of Dwarka the link on maple dallas
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
WebHon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Dashrath Roop Singh Rathore Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, Crl Appl no. 2287/2009 dated 01.08.2014, held that the jurisdiction to try the NI Act cases will be at the place where the bank of the accused is situated. WebMay 17, 2024 · Dashrath Roopsingh Rathod's case supra, the territorial jurisdiction is now regulated by the provisions in contained in Sec.142(2) of the N.I. (Amendment) … WebMar 2, 2015 · The perplexity over jurisdiction of courts in cheque bouncing cases has finally been resolved by the three judge bench of the apex court in Dashrath Rupsingh … the link on maple