Gujarat’s other calling card

Gujarat’s other calling card

Whether it is female infanticide, education or health indicators, Modi’s Gujarat...
Safe assets

Safe assets

The asset disclosures for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections...

Doctors are not ‘workmen’

Comments 0
SummaryThe Supreme Court, in its judgment in the case Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia Vs. Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt Ltd and Ors, has reiterated that a cheque bounce

Cheque bounce jurisdiction

The Supreme Court, in its judgment in the case Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia Vs. Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt Ltd and Ors, has reiterated that a cheque bounce complaint against a drawer can be taken up in any court under whose territorial limits any one of the five different acts constituting the offence happened.

Five different acts compose the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and if any one of these five different acts was done in a particular locality, the court having territorial jurisdiction on that locality can become the place of trial, the apex court stated.

The five elements are drawing of the cheque, presentation to the bank, bouncing, giving notice to the drawer and his/her failure to make payment within 15 days.

In this case, the five acts were done at different places happened in two cities—Mumbai and New Delhi. As at least one act was committed in Mumbai, the complaint was filed in the city.

Initially, the special metropolitan magistrate issued summons to the accused but later rejected the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. However, the sessions judge took a contrary view.

While the Bombay High Court upheld the magistrate’s order, SC said that once the magistrate takes cognisance of an offence, forms his opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and issues summons, then there is no question of review or recall.

Municipal licence must for clubs

SC, in the case Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika vs Willingdon Sports Club, has held that a club has to take licence for its catering department even if it does not make profit and the entry is restricted to members-only.

It set aside the Bombay HC order that quashed demand notices issued to the sporting club on the ground that catering facilities being provided to its members were incidental to their main activities and were not open to public.

“…even though profit is not the motto of the club but the advantage derived by it by supplying food to its members and their guests is certainly covered by the word ‘gain’ appearing in the definition of ‘eating house’” SC said.

The top court directed the club to apply for licence failing which the municipal body will be free to initiate proceedings for imposition of penalty.

Doctors not ‘workmen’ under ID Act

Doctors at the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) dispensaries/hospitals cannot be classified as ‘workmen’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, SC said in the case E.S.I.C. Medical

Single Page Format
Ads by Google

More from Edit & Columns

Reader´s Comments
| Post a Comment
Please Wait while comments are loading...