The Delhi High Court while adjudicating GVPR vs. A.K. Tiwari ( order dated 30.01.2011) discussed the
issue of "cheques at par", negating the factum that as "at par cheques " are payable at all branches therefore the courts of Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the matters irrespective of the where the Branch is situated.
However, by way of an SLP( 4130/2011) A.K. Tiwari challenged the said Judgement (GVPR vs. A.K. Tiwari ( order dated 30.01.2011) ). The matter is still pending in the SC. The last order dictated under the matter was that the matter would be immediately taken up after Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2287/2009)is decided.
Therefore with respect to the above stated, the Judgement passed by the Bombay HC would have less standing as the issue of "at par cheques" is yet pending adjudication in the Supreme Court. As the fate of the " at par cheques" is yet pending, the returning of the cases wherein the cheques were at par is questionable.
Print Page
issue of "cheques at par", negating the factum that as "at par cheques " are payable at all branches therefore the courts of Delhi would have jurisdiction to try the matters irrespective of the where the Branch is situated.
However, by way of an SLP( 4130/2011) A.K. Tiwari challenged the said Judgement (GVPR vs. A.K. Tiwari ( order dated 30.01.2011) ). The matter is still pending in the SC. The last order dictated under the matter was that the matter would be immediately taken up after Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2287/2009)is decided.
Therefore with respect to the above stated, the Judgement passed by the Bombay HC would have less standing as the issue of "at par cheques" is yet pending adjudication in the Supreme Court. As the fate of the " at par cheques" is yet pending, the returning of the cases wherein the cheques were at par is questionable.
No comments:
Post a Comment