TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anner and there is no application of mind as to why the said compensation has to be awarded. The Trial Court misread Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act and treated the said provision of law as mandatory in nature, whereas the legal position is otherwise. The matter is remanded back to learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter regarding grant of interim compensation to the complainant/respondent under Section 143A, in accordance with law within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand. - CRM – M - No. 54345 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner ORDER KARAMJIT SINGH , J.(Oral) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments Act. On the completion of preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned and he appeared before the Trial Court and was granted bail. The Trial Court on 24.09.2021 passed the following order:- Present: Gagandeep Bhagria, Adv. Counsel for complainant. Accused on bail with counsel Sh. HS Sidhu, Advocate. Heard on point of service of notice of accusation. Finding a prima-facie case being made out against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, notice of accusation was served upon the accused Ranbir Chand. The contents of the notice were read over and explained to accused in vernacular, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Negotiable Instruments Act, is totally illegal, being passed in mechanical manner without application of mind. The counsel further contended that recently Delhi High Court in CRL.MC 2663 of 2021 M/s Jsb Cargo and Freight Forwarder Pvt. Ltd Vs. State and another, decided on 20.12.2021, held that provision of Section 143(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, essentially is directory and cannot be termed as mandatory in nature. The counsel further contended that it appears that the trial Court gave the impugned direction, having the impression that the aforesaid provision is mandatory in nature. The counsel further contended that the impugned order to the extent stated above is liable to be set aside. I have considered the submissions made by co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
