https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199146 Section 202 CrPC was treated as directory, so non-compliance did not invalidate the order issuing process. The objection to territorial jurisdiction also failed because the complaint showed a Mumbai registered office, deposit of the cheque at Mumbai, and receipt of notice at Mumbai; those facts were sufficient to found jurisdiction in the Mumbai Magistrate's Court. The process order was therefore sustained, while issues of debt, liability, and privity of contract were left for trial determination. en-us Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:42:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199146 Section 202 CrPC was treated as directory, so non-compliance did not invalidate the order issuing process. The objection to territorial jurisdiction also failed because the complaint showed a Mumbai registered office, deposit of the cheque at Mumbai, and receipt of notice at Mumbai; those facts were sufficient to found jurisdiction in the Mumbai Magistrate's Court. The process order was therefore sustained, while issues of debt, liability, and privity of contract were left for trial determination. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199146