Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.69 seconds)Nishant Aggarwal vs Kailash Kumar Sharma on 1 July, 2013
In the present case, respondent No.1 has filed the
complaint in question against the petitioners and another qua
dishonour of cheque dated 24.1.2009 in the sum of ` 1,01,345/-.
Devi Anita
Admittedly, respondent No.1 had worked as Associate Vice President
2013.08.21 14:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M-22139 of 2010 (O&M) 5
(Operations) with the petitioners at Chennai. The cheque in question
was presented for encashment by respondent No.1 to his bank at
Nasik (in Maharashtra). The cheque had been issued by the
petitioners-company from its account maintained with the bank at
Chennai. Hence, the Court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to try the
complaint merely because the notice qua dishonour of the cheque
had been issued from Ludhiana by the complainant. Thus, the case
in hand is duly covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Harman
Electronics's case (supra) as well as Nishant Aggarwal's case
(supra).
Section 201 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1