<?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>2014 (12) TMI 1364 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290664</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is determined by the place where the cheque is dishonoured, read with Sections 138 and 142 and the general rule in Section 177 CrPC. The facility of payable-at-par or multi-city cheques, introduced for banking convenience, does not change the character of the drawee bank or shift jurisdiction to a non-home branch where the cheque is merely presented. Presentation at such a branch still depends on verification by the home branch and does not make that place the locus of the offence. On this reasoning, Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2020 10:52:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=624494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 1364 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290664</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is determined by the place where the cheque is dishonoured, read with Sections 138 and 142 and the general rule in Section 177 CrPC. The facility of payable-at-par or multi-city cheques, introduced for banking convenience, does not change the character of the drawee bank or shift jurisdiction to a non-home branch where the cheque is merely presented. Presentation at such a branch still depends on verification by the home branch and does not make that place the locus of the offence. On this reasoning, Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>