Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 823 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - direction to pay interim compensation under Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act - petitioner has not been given any opportunity before passing the impugned order - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S.S. DESWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS VIRENDER GANDHI [2019 (5) TMI 1626 - SUPREME COURT] has settled the proposition of law that the provisions of Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act are prospective in nature. So far as Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the same are retrospective in nature. There is no dispute that the complaint in question has been filed after the amendment which came into effect w.e.f. 1.9.2018. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act are very much applicable in the present case. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned Trial Court after filing of complaint issued notice to the accused petitioner and heard both the sides. The contents of notice were also read over to the accused-petitioner in simple Punjabi language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The provisions of Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act provide discretion to the Trial Court for granting interim compensation to the complainant in order to meet the objects and reasons behind the amendment. The Trial Court is to exercise its discretion keeping in view the facts and circumstances of every case. From the reading of the case in hand, the Trial Court found the case appropriate wherein cheque of Rs.10 lakh was issued by the accused petitioner to the complainant, however, the same was dishonored on its presentation. The Act provides the discretion to the court for granting interim compensation not exceeding 20% of the cheque amount. In the present case, learned Trial Court has not exceeded the upper limit of 20%. In all its humility there is no dispute regarding the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, however, the same are distinguishable on the facts of the present case. Petition dismissed.
|