U/s 138 & recovery case of ni act and s-420 of ipc
manav
(Querist) 03 November 2014
This query is : Resolved
a ) cheque bounced thrice :-
procedure/language/drafting/letter/notice/communication to send to the defaulter on behalf of client u/s 138 of NI act and recovery claim process/language/notice etc.
b ) a and b incorporated pvt.ltd co. with equal capital :
b changed regtd. office and appointed his wife a govt. employee as director and retired A from directorship without information.
procedure/language/drafting/letter/notice/communication to send to the defaulter on behalf of client u/s 420 of IPC and recovery claim process/language/notice etc. and information to govt. department of wife about directorship in pvt. co.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 04 November 2014
The case is to be filed against company and both current and ex-director.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 04 November 2014
FILE CASE IN CIVIL COURT
CAN ALSO LODGE COMPL
Sailesh Kumar Shah
(Expert) 04 November 2014
for mentioned all action, you have to take services of advocate.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 09 January 2015
There is no last word in Jurisdiction issue, there will be many many more judgments.
Regarding GUJRAT HC judgment it is stayed by same court for going to SC, further progress not known.
But one thing in all similar cases must not be forgotten that even APEX COURT can not change the law. In DASRATH case it has just defined the provisions of existing law.
So all told the jurisdiction was always there in criminal cases at place of offense and in cheque cases it is defined as the place of DRAWEE bank.
So many HIGH COURTS have even rejected the argument of AT PAR cheques theory and confirmed that the complaint can lie only at the place of DRAWEE BANK.
So a situation may come when after JUDGMENTS even in not transferred cases accused can claim that complaints were invalid for want of jurisdiction.
