advocatemmmohan
hdfc bank
unsolicited calls from banks/financial institution, like ICICI, UTI, HSBC, HDFC etc. for tele-marketing their products and services.- complaint =
unsolicited calls from banks/financial institution, like ICICI, UTI, HSBC, HDFC etc. for tele-marketing their products and services.- complaint = A complaint filed for unsolicited calls claiming heavy damages before the state commission – State commission converted the complaint as a representative suit – Cellular Operators Association was also impleaded after that – interim orders given … Continue reading
ARBITRATION ACT= The matter was, thereafter, taken up by the designate Judge who came to a finding that the agreement dated 24.05.2005 was not legal and valid and, therefore, the disputes between the parties arising out of the said agreement could not be referred to an arbitrator. The application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was, therefore, dismissed. 9. It is the said decision of the designate Judge, which is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals. The issue regarding the continued existence of the arbitration agreement, notwithstanding the main agreement itself being declared void, was considered by the 7-Judge Bench in SBP & Co. (supra) and it was held that an arbitration agreement could stand independent of the main agreement and did not necessarily become otiose, even if the main agreement, of which it is a part, is declared void. has to first decide his own jurisdiction and whether the party concerned has approached the right High Court.; whether there is an arbitration agreement and as to whether the person who has made the request before him, is a party to such agreement. ; whether the claim was a dead one or a long-barred claim, that was sought to be resurrected. = The above views expressed by the 7-Judge Bench and by the learned Single Judge are sufficient to dispose of these appeals. In the light of what has been indicated hereinbefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment and the order of the designated Judge once again and directing that the matter be again considered de novo in the light of the observations made hereinabove and the various decisions cited at the Bar.
Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4596 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.7334 of 2010] M/s Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant Vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust & Anr. …Respondents WITH C.A. No.4597 of 2013 @ SLP(C)No.11778/2010, C.A. No.4598 of 2013 @ SLP(C)No.10795/2010, C.A. No.4595 of 2013 … Continue reading
XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, since the entire cause of action arose only at Nagercoil and no cause of action arose at Chennai conferring territorial jurisdiction to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The loan transaction was at branch of the respondent’s firm situated at Nagercoil. The cheques were presented at HDFC Bank, Nagercoil and notice alone has been issued from Chennai and as per the dictum of the Apex Court, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and hence, he prayed for withdrawal and transfer of the case pending before XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, to the competent territorial jurisdictional Court at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.But, here, not only notice has been issued from Chennai, the cheques were also presented at Chennai. As per the dictum of the apex Court reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510 (K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran V.Balan and another), I am of the view that since the cheques were presented for collection at Chennai, XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Chennai has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In such circumstances, I am of the view that mere issuance of notice will not confer any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. But, the presentation of cheque to the Bank is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence I am of the view that XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 14.Furthermore, already, P.W.1/respondent was examined, but however, he was not cross-examined by the accused, when the matter was posted for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Issuance of cheque is not disputed by him and dishonour of cheque has not been disputed by him. In such circumstances, to delay the proceedings, he come forward with this petition for transferring the case from XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Saidapet, Chennai, to any other competent Court situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, does not merit acceptance. Hence, the criminal original petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. 15.In fine, The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Since the case is under Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning stage, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate for earlier disposal of the case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA CRL.O.P.No.24689 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 P.Soman .. Petitioner/Accused ..Vs.. M/S.Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. Rep. by S.Saravanan No.9, Kamaraj Salai Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83. .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer:- The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C., to … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 