Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

U/S 138 N.I. Act: Deposit Compensation Not an Absolute Rule in Cheque Bounce Cases: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order from the Moga Sessions Court in the case of Chamkaur Singh vs. The Moga Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. This landmark decision underscores the flexibility in the legal requirement to deposit 20% of compensation in cheque dishonor cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, presiding over the case, emphasized, “Deposit of minimum 20% amount is not an absolute rule, not accommodating any exception.” This observation came in the context of a revision petition filed by Chamkaur Singh, challenging the appellate court’s order mandating the deposit of 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial court.

The case, marked under CRR-2600-2023, initially saw the petitioner convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, along with a directive to pay a substantial compensation amount. The appellate court, while suspending the sentence under Section 389 CrPC, had ordered Singh to deposit 20% of the compensation, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Deshwal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others Vs. Virender Gandhi and another.

Chamkaur Singh, claiming financial hardship due to losses incurred during the Covid period, appealed for an exemption from this deposit. His plea was supported by a reference to another Supreme Court judgment in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others, which allows for exceptions in cases with extraordinary circumstances.

Justice Gupta’s ruling highlighted that while the appellate court is generally justified in imposing the condition of deposit as per Section 148 of the NI Act, it must also consider if the imposition of such a condition would be unjust or amount to deprivation of the right of appeal. The High Court directed that the case be remanded back to the appellate court for reconsideration, specifically focusing on whether the petitioner’s circumstances warrant an exemption from the deposit requirement.

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

CHAMKAUR SINGH VS The Moga Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 

Similar News