9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 136 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - legality of direction to pay interim compensation to the complainant as per the provisions of Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act - non-speaking order - opportunity of hearing not given to petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the Delhi High Court in M/s Jsb Cargo 2021 (12) TMI 898 - DELHI HIGH COURT remitted the matter to trial Court after holding that provision of Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act, is only directory in nature. Admittedly, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his response, before passing of the impugned order despite the fact that he had not pleaded guilty to the notice of accusation served upon him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. From the perusal of impugned order, it appears that the Trial Court granted interim compensation under Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act just in a routine manner 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 as mandatory in nature, whereas the legal position is otherwise. The impugned order to the extent it has been challenged is liable to be set aside being non-speaking and contrary to settled position of law - 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.
Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of order directing payment of interim compensation under Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash an order passed by the Trial Court directing the petitioner to pay interim compensation to the respondent under Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed mechanically without proper application of mind and cited a Delhi High Court case to argue that Section 143(A) is directory, not mandatory. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court misinterpreted the provision as mandatory and sought to set aside the order. The High Court considered the submissions made by the petitioner and noted that the Delhi High Court and the Karnataka High Court had held that Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is directory, not mandatory. The High Court observed that the Trial Court did not provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond before passing the impugned order, despite the petitioner not pleading guilty to the notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Act. The High Court found that the Trial Court had granted interim compensation in a routine manner without proper application of mind, misreading the provision as mandatory. Based on the above analysis, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Trial Court to reconsider the grant of interim compensation to the complainant/respondent under Section 143(A) in accordance with the law within one month of receiving a certified copy of the High Court's order.
|
