High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

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