WebDec 8, 2024 · Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra (2014) The Supreme Court’s three- judges bench ruled that the complaint regarding the dishonour of a cheque can be filed only in the Courts within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed. 5. Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) WebApr 4, 2024 · Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129 In this case, Section 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 clarifies that this Act will not be valid as a defence to the drawer of the cheque stating that he had no reasoning to believe that the cheque will be dishonoured when he issued the cheque. Basalingappa v.
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and …
WebExecutive level experience as ‘Director of Information and Technology’ responsible for developing IT strategy, planning IT budgeting, evaluating and deciding technology … WebJan 3, 2024 · Although Dashrath Rupsingh is partly correct in saying that an offence is committed the moment cheque is dishonoured at the drawee bank, but it is to be noted … fmovies transformers
Territorial Jurisdictional Constraints of Cheque Bounce Cases
WebDashrath Rupsingh Rathod Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant, the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case will be determined … WebFeb 21, 2024 · Therefore, the use of the phrase: 'shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction 'in Section 142 (2) of the Act 1881 is contextual to the ratio laid down in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra) to the contrary, whereby territorial jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 vested in the … WebDashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. By Shatakshi Vats- Amity Law School, Noida Introduction The judgment by the honourable Apex court in the case, resolved the long-drawn confusion … fmovies tv shows