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>High Court Upholds Delhi's Jurisdiction in Section 138 NI Act Case, Emphasizes Evidence Examination</h1> <h3>Hartraj Singh Versus Godrej Agrovet Ltd and Anr.</h3> The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts in Delhi to decide a complaint under Section 138 of ... - Issues Involved: The issue involves determining the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts in Delhi to entertain and decide a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: The petitioner argued that the criminal courts in Delhi lack territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the petitioner is based in Ladakh and the bank issuing the dishonored cheque is in Panchkula, Haryana.Issue 2: Respondent No. 1 contended that payments by the petitioner were credited in their Delhi account, invoices were issued from Delhi, and negotiations for goods supply took place in Delhi, establishing Delhi's jurisdiction.Issue 3: Respondent No. 1 stated that negotiations for goods supply took place in Delhi, and the goods dispatched were subject to Delhi jurisdiction, raising a factual dispute on the location of the debt accrual and dishonored cheque delivery.Issue 4: Referring to legal precedents, the judgment highlighted the elements required for conviction under Section 138 of the Act, emphasizing the importance of proving the dishonored cheque, notice of payment demand, and failure to pay within the stipulated period.Issue 5: Examining territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases, the judgment referred to Code of Criminal Procedure sections and emphasized that the offense under Section 138 involves a series of acts that may occur in different localities, allowing flexibility in determining the place of trial.Issue 6: The judgment differentiated the present case from legal precedents, emphasizing that the place of issue of the legal notice did not determine Delhi's jurisdiction, and factual disputes necessitate oral evidence and cross-examination.Issue 7: The judgment rejected the petitioner's argument that only the complaint and pre-summoning affidavit should determine jurisdiction, citing legal precedents allowing additional evidence to establish territorial jurisdiction even after summoning.Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that it took a prima facie view, and highlighted the need for the trial court to examine disputed factual questions regarding territorial jurisdiction.Note: The judgment emphasizes the complexity of determining territorial jurisdiction in cases involving multiple acts in different localities, highlighting the need for thorough examination and consideration of all relevant evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
