Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 in 1 pages
manoj joshi
Wrote on 11 December 2014  

respect friends im not agree with this judgement must br refer to larger bench

dr g balakrishnan
Wrote on 08 September 2014  

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!

dr g balakrishnan
Wrote on 08 September 2014  

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!

dr g balakrishnan
Wrote on 08 September 2014  

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!

Murugesan Ramaswamy
Wrote on 24 August 2014  

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

Wrote on 18 August 2014  

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