Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 1 August, 2014
In view of the law explained by the Supreme Court in
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), which has been correctly followed
by the learned trial Court in the instant case, the direction issued by the
High Court on the administrative side cannot obviously continue to
operate.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 177 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Indian Technomac Co. Ltd. vs State Of H.P. . on 22 August, 2014
7. Another factor to be noticed is that at the time the High Court issued
the above public notice there was only one district and sessions division
for the entire territory of Delhi. That situation changed in 2013. On 19th
February 2013 the High Court announced that consequent upon the
creation of 11 district/sessions divisions/metropolitan areas by the
Tr.P. (Crl) No. 68 of 2014 Page 3 of 5
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi („GNCTD‟) the cases
of a particular sessions division should be transferred to the respective
courts. The further order was, however, silent as regards the cases of
financial institutions. This Court by an order dated 10th February 2014 in
Transfer (Criminal) Petition No. 7 of 2014 (Indian Technomac
Company Private Limited v. State) highlighted the anomaly this created.
Nevertheless, in that case, the complaint was directed to be transferred
from the Dwarka Court to the court of appropriate jurisdiction.
1