https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314375 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to directly challenge a summoning order when an efficacious revision remedy is available before the appropriate court. The application had originally concerned recall of non-bailable warrants, and the attempt to introduce a challenge to the summoning order by amendment had not been allowed. The Court therefore declined to entertain the direct challenge in the proper forum, while noting that no merits of the Section 138 NI Act allegations were examined and that a moratorium order existed. Interim protection was granted by keeping the non-bailable warrants and further proceedings in abeyance for six weeks, with liberty to appear, seek bail, and pursue the challenge before the correct forum. en-us Thu, 17 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Jun 2024 19:47:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314375 Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to directly challenge a summoning order when an efficacious revision remedy is available before the appropriate court. The application had originally concerned recall of non-bailable warrants, and the attempt to introduce a challenge to the summoning order by amendment had not been allowed. The Court therefore declined to entertain the direct challenge in the proper forum, while noting that no merits of the Section 138 NI Act allegations were examined and that a moratorium order existed. Interim protection was granted by keeping the non-bailable warrants and further proceedings in abeyance for six weeks, with liberty to appear, seek bail, and pursue the challenge before the correct forum. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314375