Skip to main content

NI Act Ordinance 2015 is Retrospective

A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices J.S.Khehar and R.Banumati has held that, in view of the Amended Section 142(2) of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance 2015, the place where a cheque is delivered for collection i.e., the branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, where the drawee maintains an account, would be the determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction for filing Complaint under the NI Act. The Bench was hearing an Appeal from an order dated 5.5. 2011 of Madhya Pradesh High Court in which it is held that the Jurisdiction to file a Complaint under NI Act lay only before the Court where-in the original drawee bank was located. The High Court relied on the Three Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra.

Criminal Appeal No. 1557 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7850 of 2011), Criminal Appeal No. 1562 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9758 of 2011), Criminal Appeal No. 1563 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10019 of 2011) and Criminal Appeal No. 1564 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10020 of 2011)

Decided On: 24.11.2015

Appellants: Bridgstone India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Inderpal Singh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.S. Khehar and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...
21 comments
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...
10 comments
Read more

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le...
1 comment
Read more