Back
SHAH, MANMOHAN
DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE – Appellant
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
1. Petitioner which is a Legal Aid Committee has filed the present writ petition in public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing return of all criminal complaints filed under the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") that are pending in the Courts of the Metropolitan Magistrates in Delhi, in which cognizance has been taken, even though the Metropolitan Magistrates have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try them.
2. Ms. Iyoti Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner stated that a large number of cases have been filed by various financial institutions, banks and other complainants under Section 138 of NI Act in Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates in Delhi regarding dishonour of cheques, without first ascertaining whether the trial Courts in Delhi have territorial jurisdiction in the matter or not. According to Ms. Singh, in most of the cases, financial institutions/banks have filed complaints in Delhi only on the ground that the statutory notice of 15 days after dishonour of cheque had been issued from Delhi even though
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The descriptions primarily reference the initial judgments or decisions without mention of subsequent invalidation or disapproval. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, there are no clear indicators of bad law treatment.
Followed/Upheld:
Religare Finvest Limited VS Sambath Kumar - Dishonour Of Cheque (2010): The case mentions that "The appeal was dismissed thereby upholding the decision of the High Court," indicating the decision was upheld on appeal.
RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED VS SAMATH KUMARA - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 488: Similarly states "The appeal was dismissed thereby upholding the decision of the High Court," indicating continued validity.
GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. VS Rahisuddin Khan - Delhi (2011), GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. VS Rashisuddin Khan - Current Civil Cases (2011), GE Capital Transportation Financial Services VS Rashisuddin Khan - Dishonour Of Cheque (2011): These cases involve directions or orders from the Supreme Court to maintain status, implying the decisions have been affirmed or maintained.
Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. VS National Panasonic India Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2008): Discusses the legal principle regarding jurisdiction, with no indication of being overruled or criticized.
ICICI Bank Ltd. VS Subhash Chand Bansal - 2009 0 Supreme(Del) 606: References a recent Supreme Court verdict that "holds the field," implying the decision is current and authoritative.
Air India Statutory Corporation VS United Labour Union - 1997 2 Supreme 165: Describes legal points without indicating any subsequent negative treatment.
Religare Finvest Limited VS State - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 915: Describes an appeal process but does not indicate reversal or criticism.
Distinguished/Clarified:
The repeated references to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. ... cases (e.g., K. O. Issac VS State - Dishonour Of Cheque (2009), K. O. ISSAC VS State - Dishonour Of Cheque (2009), K. O. Issac VS State - Delhi (2009), GE Capital Transportation Financial Services VS Rashisuddin Khan - Dishonour Of Cheque (2011), etc.) suggest these cases are frequently cited and their scope clarified (e.g., "applies only to those cases where the complainant invokes..."). No indication of criticism or overrule is provided; these are likely considered settled or authoritative references.
Uncertain/Unclear Treatment:
The case Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371: Discusses a procedural question about magistrate’s powers, with no mention of subsequent treatment.
The case Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. VS National Panasonic India Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2008): States a legal principle without indicating whether it has been questioned or overruled.
The case GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. VS Rashisuddin Khan - Current Civil Cases (2011): Mentions directions from the Supreme Court but does not specify if these have been challenged or overruled.
The case GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. VS Rahisuddin Khan - Delhi (2011): Mentions a Supreme Court order to maintain status but no indication of subsequent treatment.
The case GE Capital Transportation Financial Services VS Rashisuddin Khan - Dishonour Of Cheque (2011): Similar to above, mentions Supreme Court directions without further treatment details.
The case Air India Statutory Corporation VS United Labour Union - 1997 2 Supreme 165: Provides legal observations without treatment context.
The case Religare Finvest Limited VS State - 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 915: Describes an appeal process but no indication of reversal or criticism.
In summary, there are no cases explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or bad law based on the provided descriptions. Most cases appear to be either upheld, referenced as authoritative, or involve directions from higher courts without indication of subsequent negative treatment.
Cases involving references to Supreme Court orders (GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. VS Rahisuddin Khan - Delhi (2011), GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. VS Rashisuddin Khan - Current Civil Cases (2011), GE Capital Transportation Financial Services VS Rashisuddin Khan - Dishonour Of Cheque (2011)) are treatment-wise unclear; they likely affirm the decisions but without explicit mention of overrule or criticism.
The procedural and legal principle cases (Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371, Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. VS National Panasonic India Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2008), Air India Statutory Corporation VS United Labour Union - 1997 2 Supreme 165) lack treatment context, making their current legal standing uncertain.
The repeated references to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee v. ... cases do not specify whether these are still good law or have been challenged, so their treatment remains somewhat ambiguous without additional context.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
