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

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