Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Supreme Court Quashes Order on Deposit of Interim Compensation in Dishonored Cheque Case

04 September 2024 10:30 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed an order directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the amount of a dishonored cheque as interim compensation. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar, addressed the tenability of the trial court’s order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The court held that the order was in violation of Section 143A(1) of the Act, which stipulates that interim compensation can only be granted when the accused pleads not guilty to the accusation in the complaint. The order in question was issued before the accused had entered a plea, thus infringing upon the statutory provision.

Quoting from the judgment, the bench stated, “As is evident from a plain reading of Section 143A(1)(a), it is only where the accused ‘pleads not guilty’ of the accusation made in the complaint that interim compensation under Section 143A(1) can be granted. In the present case, the Magistrate did not issue the order after the plea of the accused was entered, but before that i.e. after he answered the summons.”

The court emphasized that since the trial had reached an advanced stage, no further orders were made. However, it clarified that the complainant could seek appropriate relief, including under Section 143A, at any stage of the trial, thus upholding the complainant’s right to claim relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and statutory provisions while granting interim compensation in dishonored cheque cases. It sets a precedent for future cases and provides clarity on the applicability of Section 143A at different stages of the trial.

The decision of the Supreme Court carries significant implications for the enforcement of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ensures fairness in the proceedings related to dishonored cheques.

Date of Decision: 7th July 2023

PAWAN BHASIN  vs STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Latest Legal News