Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 3 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 72 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 177 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 178 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 179 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
M/S. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr vs M/S. National Panasonic India Ltd on 12 December, 2008
The quashing of the complaint has been prayed
for on the ground of want of jurisdiction by the Court at Jalandhar as neither
any work was done at Jalandhar by the respondent for the petitioner nor the
Courts at Jalandhar have any territorial jurisdiction to interfere the
complaint. The cheque was issued from Delhi and was dishonoured by the
drawee bank at Delhi. The statutory notice was also sent to Delhi and no
cause of action has contemplated under Section 138 of the Act within the
jurisdiction of Court at Jalandhar. The petitioner placed reliance on
Harman Electronics Private Limited and another Vs. National
Panasonic India Private Limited, (2009) 1 SCC 720.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd vs Jayaswals Neco Limited on 22 February, 2001
The reliance of counsel
for the petitioner on Shri Ishar Alloy's case (supra) is also misplaced. He
had referred to paras 8 and 9 which has been reproduced hereinabove but
did not refer to para 10 which reads as follows:-
Som Sugandh Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs Uoi & Anr. on 8 February, 2010
The facts
and circumstances of Som Sugandh Industries case (supra) are absolutely
different and the judgment does not, in any manner, help the petitioner.
1