TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Accused empowered to challenge summoning orders under Section 138: Court clarifies recall procedure</h1> <h3>PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus STATE</h3> The court addressed the dismissal of applications seeking the recall of summoning orders under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the ... Precedent - Judicial discipline - Any law laid down by Supreme Court is, unless reversed or reviewed, binding on all Courts in India including the High Courts Issues:1. Dismissal of applications seeking recall of summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.2. Interpretation of the power of the trial court to recall summoning orders.3. Application of judicial discipline in following Supreme Court judgments.4. Comparison of facts between the present case and the K.M. Mathews case.5. Error in the judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Analysis:1. The case involved the dismissal of applications seeking the recall of summoning orders under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who ignored the verdict of the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathews v. State of Kerala, emphasizing the power of the accused to challenge the summoning order.2. The judgment analyzed the interpretation of the trial court's power to recall summoning orders, highlighting the Supreme Court's view that the order issuing the process is interim and can be varied or recalled if the complaint does not disclose any offense against the accused.3. The issue of judicial discipline was raised concerning the learned Additional Sessions Judge's deviation from the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that Supreme Court judgments are binding on all courts, including High Courts, regardless of any conflicting judgments at the High Court level.4. A comparison of facts between the present case and the K.M. Mathews case revealed no substantial differences in the procedural aspects of handling complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, indicating the learned ASJ's untenable reasoning for dismissing the applications.5. The judgment concluded that the learned ASJ's decision was erroneous, unjust, and almost contemptuous of the Supreme Court, setting aside the impugned order and directing the ASJ to decide the applications on their merits based on the binding law laid down in the K.M. Mathews case, with a directive to circulate the order for guidance to all Judicial Officers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
