ASHWIN ASHOKRAO KAROKAR Vs. LAXMIKANT GOVIND JOSHI
LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-38
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on July 07,2022

Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar Appellant
VERSUS
Laxmikant Govind Joshi Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

FREDERIC GUILDER JULIUS VS. THE RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD [REFERRED TO]
EDWARD RAMIA LTD. VS. AFRICAN WOODS LTD [REFERRED TO]
S.S. BOLA AND OTHERS VS. B. D. SARDANA [REFERRED TO]
MODI CEMENTS VS. KUCHIL KUMAR NANDI [REFERRED TO]
MANILAL MOHANLAL SHAH VS. SARDAR SAYED AHMED SAYED MAHMAD [REFERRED TO]
M PENTIAH VS. MUDDALA VEERAMALLAPPA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BABU RAM UPADHYA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. JOGENDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KEDARNATH JUTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
DHARMADEO RAI VS. RAMNAGINA RAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. I K NANGIA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. GURNAM KAUR [REFERRED TO]
GWALIOR RATON SILK MANUFACTURING WEAVING CO LIMITED VS. CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS PALGHAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ORISSA VS. BUDHARAJA AND COMPANY N C [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
D SAIBABA VS. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MARDIA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DEEWAN SINGH VS. RAJENDRA PD ARDEVI [REFERRED TO]
BACHAHAN DEVI VS. NAGAR NIGAM GORAKHPUR [REFERRED TO]
B PREMANAND VS. MOHAN KOIKAL [REFERRED TO]
MAQBUL AHMAD VS. ONKAR PRATAP NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
APARNA A. SHAH VS. SHETH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
DILIP K BASU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
AJAY VINODCHANDRA SHAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH DESWAL VS. VIRENDER GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
G. J. RAJA VS. TEJRAJ SURANA [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH DESWAL VS. VIRENDER GANDHI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

GULJAMA SHAH JAHIR SHAH VS. SHRI SADGURU KAKA STONE CRUSHER [LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-373] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

AVINASH G.GHAROTE, J. - (1.)Heard Mr. Madhur Deo, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhushan Mohta, learned Counsel for the respondent. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.
(2.)The petitions raise two interesting questions :
(i) Whether the provisions of Sec. 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which empower the Court to direct payment of interim compensation are mandatory or directory and

(ii) In case it is held that the same is directory, whether the Court has to record reasons for determining the quantum of interim compensation to be awarded as contemplated by Sec. 143-A (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ?

(3.)The facts in the instant matter, indicate that the respondent/Complainant filed proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as the "N.I. Act"), in respect of two cheques one for Rs.15,00,000.00 and the other for Rs.5,00,000.00 issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent which when presented were dishonoured for insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner resulting in the above proceedings, in which, an application under Sec. 143-A of the N.I. Act came to be filed. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Saoner by two impugned orders both dtd. 26/11/2021, granted the applications and directed the petitioner/accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant as an interim compensation within 60 days from the date of the said order.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.