<?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>2025 (4) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768088</link>
    <description>In cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the territorial return of a complaint after Dashrath depends on whether the matter had already crossed the stage where post-summoning evidence under Section 145(2) had commenced. Here, cognizance had been taken, summons issued, the accused had appeared, and the case had progressed to the stage fixed for evidence. On those facts, the Magistrate&#039;s view that the Section 145(2) stage had not been reached was held to be an incorrect application of the governing territorial jurisdiction rule, and the complaint was directed to continue before the Bidhannagar court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 08:31:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=810657" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768088</link>
      <description>In cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the territorial return of a complaint after Dashrath depends on whether the matter had already crossed the stage where post-summoning evidence under Section 145(2) had commenced. Here, cognizance had been taken, summons issued, the accused had appeared, and the case had progressed to the stage fixed for evidence. On those facts, the Magistrate&#039;s view that the Section 145(2) stage had not been reached was held to be an incorrect application of the governing territorial jurisdiction rule, and the complaint was directed to continue before the Bidhannagar court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>