Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (9) TMI 893 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the condition of depositing 20% of the fine amount.
2. Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Retrospective application of the amendment to Section 148 of the Act.
4. Discretion of the Appellate Court in ordering deposits under Section 148.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the condition of depositing 20% of the fine amount:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 29.03.2022, which directed the deposit of 20% of the fine amount before the trial court within 60 days. The petitioner argued that this condition was not mandatory. However, the court found this contention to lack substance, referencing a previous decision in W.P. No. 4550/2020, which interpreted Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as mandating such deposits.

2. Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
Section 148 of the Act empowers the Appellate Court to order the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. This provision aims to ensure that appellants do not use delay tactics to avoid paying fines or compensation. The court emphasized that the word "may" in this context should be read as "shall," indicating that the deposit is mandatory and not discretionary.

3. Retrospective application of the amendment to Section 148 of the Act:
The court addressed whether the amendment to Section 148, effective from 01-09-2018, applies retrospectively. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, the court concluded that the amendment applies to appeals filed after the amendment, even if the original complaints were filed before the amendment. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent delay tactics and ensure speedy resolution of cheque dishonour cases.

4. Discretion of the Appellate Court in ordering deposits under Section 148:
The court clarified that the Appellate Court does not have discretion to reduce the mandatory deposit below 20% of the fine or compensation. The provision allows for the deposit to be made within 60 days, extendable by an additional 30 days for sufficient cause. The court noted that while the Appellate Court has discretion regarding the release of the deposited amount to the complainant, it does not have discretion to alter the mandatory deposit requirement.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the requirement for the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount as per Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court's interpretation ensures that the legislative intent to prevent delay tactics and uphold the sanctity of cheque transactions is maintained.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates