Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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