LANDMARK CASE

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra

(2014) 9 SCC 129 · Supreme Court of India · Commercial and criminal law

At a glance

Citation: (2014) 9 SCC 129
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Commercial and criminal law
In one line: The court where the drawee bank is located. Parliament later amended the Act to the payee's bank.

1 Facts

The question was where cheque bounce complaints can be filed.

2 Issue

Which court has territorial jurisdiction?

3 What the court decided

The court where the drawee bank is located. Parliament later amended the Act to the payee's bank.

4 Why it matters

A case that led quickly to legislative change.

5 Think about it

Why did Parliament change the rule?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Commercial and criminal law

Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours (2012) 5 SCC 661
Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Danial Latifi v. Union of India Deena Dayal v. Union of India →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.