Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Exercise of Power Under Section 143A Discretionary, Not Mandatory: Supreme Court Clarifies on Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court  in a significant judgment clarified the contours of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the provision for interim compensation in cheque dishonor cases. The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that "the exercise of power under Section 143A(1) is discretionary, not mandatory," setting aside the orders of the lower courts for lack of proper evaluation of relevant factors and directing the Trial Court to reconsider the application for interim compensation.

The judgment revolved around the interpretation of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the grant of interim compensation in cases of cheque dishonor. The primary legal question was whether this provision is mandatory or directory in nature, and the factors to be considered while exercising this discretion.

The appellant, Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava, challenged the orders of lower courts directing him to pay interim compensation in a case filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the respondent. The dispute arose over alleged non-payment of dues in various business arrangements and resultant bounced cheques.

The Court observed that while exercising power under Section 143A, courts must engage in a prima facie evaluation of the case's merits, considering factors like the nature of the transaction, the strength of the defence, the relationship between the parties, and especially the financial distress of the accused. The Court noted, “The broad parameters for exercising discretion under Section 143A are as follows: (i) Evaluation of the merits of the case and the defence, (ii) Financial distress of the accused, (iii) Nature of transaction and relationship between parties.”

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, emphasizing judicial discretion in granting interim compensation and directing the Trial Court to reconsider the application afresh in line with these principles.

Date of Decision: March 15, 2024

Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Latest Legal News