Skip to main content
← Landmark case law
Cheque dishonour — jurisdictionBeta · pending expert review

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra

Supreme Court of India · 2014

Headnote

Beta · AI-curated
Issue
Educational issue addressed in Cheque dishonour — jurisdiction.
Principle
Addressed territorial jurisdiction for a s.138 dishonoured-cheque complaint, tying it to the drawer's bank where the cheque is dishonoured — later modified by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015.

Derived from Lekha's curated record for Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court of India, 2014). No reporter citation is asserted here — read the judgment at the official source and confirm with a qualified advocate. Beta, pending named-expert review.

Acts it touches

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Official statute

In the open corpus

Computed

Referenced in 19 judgments in the open corpus · most recent 2026

Counted by case-name match in the extracted text of the open corpus — a floor, not a total. A reference says nothing about how the later judgment treated the case.

Citation network

Beta

Cited by later decisions (showing 30+)

This judgment cites

A citation network shows which decisions reference this one — not whether it is still good law. Cases are cited to follow, distinguish or overrule them; verify current standing with a qualified advocate. Source: Indian Kanoon.

Read the judgment at the official source

An AI-curated, plain-English summary pending review by a named expert (beta) — educational, not legal advice and not a statement of how a court would decide your matter. Case law develops over time (decisions can be distinguished or overruled); always read the judgment at the official source and confirm with a qualified advocate.