TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VERSUS KANCHAN MEHTA [ 2017 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT ], this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically made a compoundable offence. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will - It must also be noted that the Respondent No.2 was duty bound to file a compromise petition before the High Court, and by not doing the same has withdrawn key information from the High Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Understanding stated that the dispute was to be settled amicably, and in the event of the dispute still not being amicably resolved, it must be first referred to a sole Arbitrator. Clause 8 of the said Memorandum Of Understanding is as under:- That any dispute under this document shall be resolved amicably. In the event the dispute is not resolved amicably, the matter shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao S/o Venkaiah whose decision shall be final and binding on all the parties. On entering reference, the sole arbitrator shall hear the parties and pass award. The provisions of arbitration and conciliation act shall apply to the arbitration proceedings. The place of arbitration shall be Ongole on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable. 11. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will. 12. It must also be noted that the Respondent No.2 was duty bound to file a compromise petition before the High Court, and by not do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
