LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Ayush (Advocate)     11 February 2011

Harman Electronics, whether overruled?

Do we have any overruling authority on territorial jurisdiction decided by SC in Harman Electronics case. Actually, we advocates are having problem here. The special court of 138 is returning cases of outstation cheques on the basis of case of Harman Electronics. the base is, where the notice has been received the courts at that place will have jurisdiction to try the complaint. May I have any authority quashing the earlier one of Harman Electronics?


 9 Replies

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     13 February 2011

It is not overuled and a good law.

Ayush (Advocate)     14 February 2011

how is it a good law?

Ajay Gulati (Practicing Advocate)     14 February 2011

One Judgment which might have escaped notice of so many people is Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd, (2001) 3 SCC 609, in which the court has said the jurisdiction would be determined by the bank of the accused..

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     18 February 2011

Please read the Herman citation which is latest. It was decided in December 2008 and hence it overules all earlier citations.

Attached File : 11 11 sc juridicttion herman case.pdf downloaded: 178 times

L G DASS (PROP.)     04 January 2012

All of you are somewhat mistaken.  How can Harmanbe said to be a good law.  Pl note that K.Bhaskaran was rendered on 29/9/11 by a Division Bench of Two Judges of Supreme Court namely K.Thomas & M.Shah.  The law laid down in K Bhaskaran was affirmed by a larger bench of Supreme Court on 18/5/07 consisting of three judges namely K.Balakrishnan, R.V Raveendran & D.K. Jain.  Later on, the same was followed in Shamshad Begum v B Mohammad by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting two judges namely Dr. Arijit pasayat and Dr. M. Sharma on 3/11/08.  It was only on 12/12/08, that the case of Harman Electrnics rendered by the Division Bench of two judges of the Supreme Court namely S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph.  

Now, please go through the case of 'Central Board of Dawoodi' wherein the Supreme Court has held that a decision or law laid down by the Supreme Court can be overruled by a larger bench only.  Following the doctrine of Binding Precedent, a decision of larger bench is binding on the bench of lessor strength and if the bench of lessor strength has some doubts over the decision of bench of co-strength, it should refer the matter to be decided by the bench of larger strength.  But, sadly saying, the bench of co-strength dealing the case of Harman has disagreed with the decision of K.Bhaskaran and instead of referring the matter to a larger bench, decided the issue.  So, it cannot be said to be a good law.  

Though, the decision in the case of Harman deals only one aspect and that is of 'issuing the notice' and 'receiving the notice'.  In that case, the entire cause of action arose in Chandigarh except issuing the notice which was issued from Delhi.  In that situation only, the case of Harman is applicable but that too is overruled by the decision of C.C. Alavi haji v Palapety Muhammad & Another (2007) 6 SCC 555 in which the bench of three judges of Supreme Court has said that the issuing of notice is sufficient on the part of the complainant.

So, please all of you should try the courts that Harman is not a good law.  It is only K. Bhaskaran that lay down the correct law which is a good law not being overruled by a larger bench.


L.G. Dass, Advocate





DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     05 January 2012

thanks for analysis , pl post the related citations.

Alternative give details of bhaskaran case.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     05 January 2012

Mr Dass You have done lot of work so please discuss the citations and show where the jurisdiction lies.

L G DASS (PROP.)     05 January 2012

The citations are as under :-

K Bhaskaran v Sankaran Vaidyan Balan & Anr.

(1999) 7 SCC 510        (29/9/99)

Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra v State of maharashtra 

(2005) 2 SCC 673       (17/12/2004)

C C Alavi Haji V Palapety muhammed & Anr

(2007) 6 SCC 555    (18/5/07)

Shamshad Begum v B mohammed

(2008) (13) SCALE 669    (3/11/08)

Harman Electronics pvt ltd v National Panasonic India pvt Ltd

(2009) 1 SCC 720    (12/12/08)


L.G. Dass, Advocate


DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     05 January 2012

Pl discuss these citations in short and what is the current position for jurisdiction.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query