Harman Electronics, whether overruled?

It is not overuled and a good law.

how is it a good law?

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..

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

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.

Thanks

L.G. Dass, Advocate

9868811417

dass_lg@yahoo.co.in 

thanks for analysis , pl post the related citations.

Alternative give details of bhaskaran case.

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

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

9868811417

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