2019 (6) TMI 173 - HC - Indian Laws

Waiver of the condition of deposit - Negotiable Instruments Act - SARFAESI Act - HELD THAT - Petitioner at no point of time had made any grievance that the trial in this case was not conducted in a summary way. So, there is no basis to urge that fine of more than ₹5000/- cannot be imposed - The direction issued by the Appellate Court to make pre-deposit of 20% of fine amount is justified. However, the consequence of non-deposit of fine, entailing cancellation of petitioner s bail is onerous one. Instead thereof, it is directed that if pre- deposit of 20% fine amount is not made by petitioner within six weeks from today, then petitioner s appeal be not entertained. This petition and applications are dismissed with cost of ₹25000/- to be paid by petitioner to respondent at the time of hearing of the appeal, if the pre-deposit is made by petitioner within the above stipulated time.

Summary

Issues:

1. Challenge to the rejection of petitioner's application for waiver of the condition of deposit of 20% of the total fine amount imposed.
2. Interpretation of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Comparison between Section 148 of the NI Act and Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
4. Consideration of merits of the case before directing the deposit of the fine/compensation amount.
5. Distinction between summary trial and regular trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. Justification of the direction to make a pre-deposit of 20% of the fine amount.
7. Consequence of non-deposit of fine on the petitioner's bail.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for waiving the 20% fine amount deposit condition. The Appellate Court referred to Section 148 of the NI Act and previous court decisions. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Court misinterpreted prior judgments and that the deposit requirement should not lead to bail cancellation. The petitioner contended that the trial was not conducted summarily, limiting the fine amount to ?5000. However, the respondent supported the impugned order.

2. The court analyzed Section 148 of the NI Act and compared it with Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It noted that the NI Act's requirement was less stringent. The court found no justification to reduce the pre-deposit amount based on the petitioner's submissions. Previous cases were cited where the pre-deposit amount was upheld. The court emphasized that summary trials are preferred under the NI Act.

3. The court addressed the distinction between summary and regular trials under the NI Act. It clarified that the trial's nature determines the applicable provisions. The court highlighted that the petitioner did not raise concerns about the trial's nature earlier, so the imposition of the 20% deposit was justified based on previous judgments.

4. The court upheld the Appellate Court's direction for the pre-deposit of 20% of the fine amount. However, it found the consequence of bail cancellation for non-deposit too severe. Instead, the court directed that if the petitioner fails to make the pre-deposit within six weeks, their appeal would not be entertained. The court dismissed the petition with costs to be paid by the petitioner if the pre-deposit is made within the stipulated time.

5. The judgment concluded by refraining from commenting on the case's merits, focusing solely on the procedural aspects and the validity of the pre-deposit requirement.