Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

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