Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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