Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

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. 

Latest Legal News