respect friends im not agree with this judgement must br refer to larger bench
i wonder when parent Act is only commercially friendly Act, how come chidambaram played on and why courts did not attempt doctrine of severability on sec 138 just it criminalized basically a civil Act!
Chidambaram wanted to assist banks' loans, even when banks imprudently gave loans for various considerations. This situation simply would up companies thanks to criminalizing sec 138 in the Act.A lot of employees lost jobs when companies wound up for no fault of employees!
My suggestion is SC judgement is right, it is also wise to declare sec 138 null n void ab initio n only chq bounces be brought under civil law that would be sensible!
The judgment with respect to jurisdiction is highly unacceptable by the payee is concern,the complainant will be harassed on the hands of the accused
The offence is deemed to be committed at the place(branch) where the payers account is from which he has issued the cheque because it is deemed to be presented there for payment thereof and the payee's bank is only a means for procuring the amount availed of by the payee. However in todays time multicity cheques payable at par at all branches across India are issued. Would this have any bearing or would it still be maintained that the branch where the account is situated would only have jurisdiction? If a person issues a cheque from a Mumbai branch of a bank which is payable at par in the banks branches in various cities (a multicity cheque) and is deposited by the payee in say Kolkata, would even then Jurisdiction be restricted to Mumbai? Kindly give your esteemed views please.
You need to be logged in to post comment
Our Network Sites
Join LAWyersclubindia.com and Share your Knowledge. Registered members get a chance to interact at Forum, Ask Query, Comment etc.
Alternatively, you can log in using: