<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (11) TMI 1473 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240296</link>
    <description>A Magistrate has no power to recall or review summons once process is issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C.; Section 201 Cr.P.C. operates only at the threshold where the complaint is presented before a court lacking competence to take cognizance. After summons issue, any challenge must be taken before a higher court, not by invoking Section 201. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, territorial jurisdiction lies where any constituent act of the offence occurs, including drawing, presentation, dishonour, notice, or non-payment. On the stated facts, Mumbai had jurisdiction because material acts, including supply of goods, handing over of cheques, and issuance of notice, occurred there.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1473 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240296</link>
      <description>A Magistrate has no power to recall or review summons once process is issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C.; Section 201 Cr.P.C. operates only at the threshold where the complaint is presented before a court lacking competence to take cognizance. After summons issue, any challenge must be taken before a higher court, not by invoking Section 201. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, territorial jurisdiction lies where any constituent act of the offence occurs, including drawing, presentation, dishonour, notice, or non-payment. On the stated facts, Mumbai had jurisdiction because material acts, including supply of goods, handing over of cheques, and issuance of notice, occurred there.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>