Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)
District vs Voltas Limited on 3 March, 2010 cites

Shamshad Begum vs B.Mohammed on 3 November, 2008

The accused defaulted to make the payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice at Mumbai and, therefore, the Mumbai court has jurisdiction. Written arguments submitted by him have been carefully perused by us. Learned counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgments in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr., 1999 (3) SCC 510; Shamshad Begum (Smt.) v. B. Mohammed (2008) 13 SCC 77 and Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 136 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Musaraf Hossain Khan vs Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors on 24 February, 2006

The accused defaulted to make the payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice at Mumbai and, therefore, the Mumbai court has jurisdiction. Written arguments submitted by him have been carefully perused by us. Learned counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgments in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr., 1999 (3) SCC 510; Shamshad Begum (Smt.) v. B. Mohammed (2008) 13 SCC 77 and Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 285 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Prem Cashew Industries & Ors. vs Zen Pareo on 22 September, 2000

In Prem Cashew Industries & Ors. v. Zen Pareo, 2001 All MR (Cri) J. 33, the Delhi High Court also dealt with similar question. In that case, the cheque which was dishonoured had been presented at Delhi and notice was issued from Delhi. Relying on K. Bhaskaran, the Delhi High Court held that inasmuch as the cheque was presented in Delhi, the Delhi court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 18 - R S Sodhi - Full Document
1   2 Next