Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Criminal Appeal no. 2287 of 2009
Date of Judgement/Order : 01/08/2014
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Honourable Supreme Court  has held in the case of  Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. that all the pending cases of cheque bouncing under Negotiable Instrument Act to be transferred to the place from the cheque is issued. The Court in the case has held as under-

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

0 Comments

  1. Ashok says:

    This judgment should be reviewed. As the same is totally in favour of the Accused as they have already committed the offence by cheating the Complainant and as such the Complainant is at loss and suffering, they have to suffer more by giving the fees to the lawyers once again after filing the case at different state or court. This case simply favor the Accused who can steal the hard earned money of innocent creditors and enjoy it at there place because most of the small creditors will not go for litigation at it will again a total waste of time and money.

  2. BRIJ MOHAN says:

    IN INDIA EVERY THING IS SO CONFUSE AND JUSTICE SYSTEM IS TOTALLY CORRUPT
    JUDGES GOT THE GOOD SALARY WITH LUXURY CARS AND LOT OF HOLIDAYS AND THE ALLOWANCES OF HIGH COURT JUDGES ARE ALSO TAX FREE EVEN IN SOME CASES JUDGEMENTS ARE SO CONFUSED THAT CREATE MORE LITIGATION
    LET ORDINARY MEN SUFFER IS THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY SYSTEM AND INDIAN BUREAUCRACY
    INDIA WILL DIE IT OWN DEATH NO NEED FOR ISIS TO INTERFERE POPULATION AND CORRUPTION WILL BE REAL CAUSE OF ITS DEATH
    MORE SUFFERINGS FOR POOR AND COMMON MAN IS WAITING

  3. shekar says:

    The judgement is not favourable to Business community. It is a punishment to complainants and blessing for defaulters. (Looks like law supports defaulters). It is highly painful that even cases of 138 under NI act are dragged for years. Honourable Court must reconsider this judgement.Let us hope there will be interference from government to put the things right.

  4. Rajesh, Mumbai says:

    with high respects for Hon.Supreme court,It seems that judgement has been issued without considering ground reality. The judgement is not favourable to Business community.It is a punishment to complainants and blessing for defaulters.It is highly painful that even cases of 138 under NI act are dragged for years. This will lead to deficit of trust amongst business community and there will be instances that even post dated cheques by reputed companies will not serve purpose for getting material on credit terms.In fact, Laws should discourage and tend to punish defaulters but in instant case it is vice versa. Let us hope there will be interference from government to put the things right otherwise there will be chaos everywhere.

  5. CA Sarvesh Kumar says:

    Agreed with the suggestions provided by Advocate Sargun Babuta and CA Sandeep Kanoi. Its a clear case of injustice on the part of the aggrieved person.He is already suffering from the loss due to non payment ,interests ,mental trauma for others dues to paid out of money to be recovered.Further he has no clue where to find a better lawyer,cost of litigation,and most importantly when and what will be outcome.Its simply a hardship and immediate action is required to remove such decision.This case simply favor the law breaker who can steal the hard earned money of innocent creditors and enjoy it at there place because most of the small creditors will not go for litigation at it will again a total waste of time and money.
    This decision is acceptable only at one circumstance where a dead line is enforced,fast track court make such decisions and total compensation including penalty is paid.But, alas!! the system of judiciary is over burdened and we could not expect such thing to happen in near future unless our pending decisions are resolved and chances of early decision occurred.

  6. CA Sarvesh Kumar says:

    Agreed with the suggestions provided by Advocate Sargun Babuta and CA Sandeep Kanoi. Its a clear case of injustice on the part of the aggrieved person.He is already suffering from the loss due to non payment ,interests ,mental trauma for others dues to paid out of money to be recovered.Further he has no clue where to find a better lawyer,cost of litigation,and most importantly when and what will be outcome.Its simply a hardship and immediate action is required to remove such decision.This case simply favor the law breaker who can steal the hard earned money of innocent creditors and enjoy it at there place because most of the small creditors will not go for litigation at it will again a total waste of time and money.
    This decision is acceptable only at one circumstance where a dead line is enforced,fast track court make such decisions and total compensation including penalty is paid.But, alas!! the system of judiciary is over burdened and we could not expect such thing to happen in near future unless our pending decisions are resolved and chances of early decision occurred.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
September 2024
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30