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 settles jurisdictional dispute, mandates adherence to legal hierarchy</h1> <h3>Nilkamal Limited Versus The Union Territory Of Dadar & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa & Anr.</h3> The High Court resolved the jurisdictional issue by directing the Magistrate to proceed with the dishonoured cheque case. The conflicting judgments ... Power and duties Judicial Magistrate - Dishonor of cheque - learned Magistrate has refused to entertain the complaint and has ordered to return the same to the petitioner on the ground that in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHOD VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER [2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT], the learned Magistrate could not have heard the said complaint - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of GEETA MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE AND ORS [2008 (9) TMI 1011 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] where it was held that now the Apex Court is seized of matters involving the said issues and therefore if any modification is made by the Apex Court in the view taken by this Court naturally the learned Magistrates will have to abide by the law laid down by the Apex Court. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the Magistrate has to follow the judgment of this Court unless and until it is set aside by the Apex Court. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate over a dishonoured cheque case.2. Conflict between judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding jurisdiction.3. Applicability of stay orders on lower courts.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the MagistrateThe petitioners filed a complaint in Summary Criminal Case No. 172 of 2014 regarding a dishonoured cheque. The complaint was returned by the Magistrate on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, as the cheque was dishonoured at a different location. The petitioners argued that since the cheque was dishonoured at a branch within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, it should be tried there, citing a previous judgment in a similar case.Issue 2: Conflict of JudgmentsThe Magistrate refused to entertain the complaint based on a Supreme Court judgment, stating that he was bound by it due to a stay order. However, the petitioner's counsel referred to a different Supreme Court judgment and a High Court judgment, emphasizing that the Magistrate should follow the High Court's decision until it is overruled by the Supreme Court. The conflict between the judgments led to uncertainty regarding the applicable law in this case.Issue 3: Applicability of Stay OrdersThe High Court, after considering the arguments and the conflicting judgments, set aside the Magistrate's order and directed him to continue hearing the case. The High Court clarified that lower courts must follow the judgments of the High Court unless they are specifically overruled by the Supreme Court, even if there is a stay order in place. This decision aimed to provide clarity on the hierarchy of judgments and the obligations of lower courts in such situations.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment resolved the jurisdictional issue by directing the Magistrate to proceed with the case. The conflicting judgments highlighted the importance of following the hierarchy of courts and established legal principles. The ruling emphasized the binding nature of High Court judgments on lower courts unless overruled by the Supreme Court, even in the presence of stay orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
