Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KRISHNA KUMAR VARIAR versus SHARE SHOPPE

Decided
3 May 2010
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K. PATNAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 1153 · 2010 INSC 263
Also cited as
  • (2010) 12 SCC 485 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 1154, margin B

2

Leave granted.

p. 1154, margin B

3

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.05.2009 of the High Court of Delhi whereby the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner herein has been dismissed.

p. 1154, margin B

4

The appellant herein is an accused under Sections 415/ 420 IPC in which summons have been issued to him by a Court at Delhi. He challenged the summoning order on the ground that it is only the Court at Bombay which has jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. His petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Challenging the summoning order has been rejected by the High Court by the impugned order. Hence he is before us in this appeal.

p. 1154, margin C

5

In our opinion, in such cases where the accused or any other person raises an objection that the Trial court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person should filed an application before the Trial Court making this averment and giving the relevant facts. Whether a court has Jurisdiction to try/ entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of the case. Hence, instead of rushing to the higher Court against the summoning order, the concerned person should approach the Trial court with a suitable application for this purpose and the Trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case.

p. 1154, margin E

6

For the reason stated herein above, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant, if so advised, may approach the Trial Court with a suitable application in this connection and, if such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall after hearing both the sides and after recording evidence on the question on jurisdiction, shall decide the question of jurisdiction before further proceeding with -the Trial. R.P. Appeal allowed.

pp. 1154–1155, margin G