Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Supreme Court Clarifies “20% Deposit Not Mandatory in Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered on September 4, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal has provided critical insights into Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). The Court clarified that “depositing 20% is not an absolute rule but allows for exceptions based on circumstances,” overturning the High Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the High Court’s ruling, which mandated that appellants must deposit at least 20% of the compensation/fine amount as per Section 148 of the N.I. Act. The Court observed that the term “may” in Section 148 should not be read as “shall,” indicating that there’s room for judicial discretion.

Further deepening the verdict, the Court pointed out that under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), an appellate court has the discretion to consider waiving the 20% deposit requirement in exceptional cases. “If it decides to do so, the reasons must be specifically recorded,” added Justice Oka.

The judgment also explicitly mentioned that both the Sessions Court and the High Court were wrong in assuming that the 20% deposit rule is without exceptions. “Both courts were wrong in assuming that the 20% deposit rule has no exceptions,” read the observation.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decisions and restored the petitions for reconsideration. “The High Court’s orders are set aside, and the petitions are restored for reconsideration based on this judgment,” concluded the Court.

Legal experts believe this judgment will serve as a pivotal guide for future cases concerning Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It also raises important questions about the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws, emphasizing the importance of a nuanced understanding that takes individual circumstances into account.

Date of Decision: September 4, 2023

JAMBOO BHANDARI      vs M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

Latest Legal News