Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1429

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N. I. Act, 1881 – Appellant
SMW(Crl.) No. 2 of 2020
Decided On : 27-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Shri Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, (A.C) Shri K.Parameshwar, Advocate, (A.C.), Mr. T.L.V. Ramachari, Advocate, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Advocate, Mr. E. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, Mr. T.N. Ramam Rao, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate, By Courts Motion, Advocate, Mr. A. Sregurupriya, Advocate, Mr. Prasad Hegde, Advocate, Mr. Anmol Kheta, Advocate, Mr. Lakshay Mehta, Advocate, for the H.C. of Karnataka, M/S. Parekh & Co., Advocate, Applicant-in-person, Advocate, For the Respondent, Mr. Romy Chacko, Advocate, Mr. Shakti Chand J., Advocate, Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, Advocate, Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocate, for the State of Delhi, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Shree Pal Singh, Advocate, for the H.C. of Calcutta, Mr. Sharan Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Advocate, Ms. Vipasha Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Hanojiya, Advocate, for the H.C. of Manipur, Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Advocate, Ms. Shashi Pathak, Advocate, Mr. Pramod KumarYadav, Advocate, Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, Advocate, Ms. Tanishka Khatana, Advocate, for the H.C.of Meghalaya, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Advocate, Mr. Parth Shekhar, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Parekh, Advocate, for the H.C. of Jharkhand, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Advocate, Mr. Manan Bansal, Advocate, for the H.C. of Telangana, Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Advocate, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Advocate, Ms. Manya Hasija, Advocate, Mr. Akash Singh, Advocate, Ms. Preeti Singh, Advocate, Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Advocate, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate, for the St. of Mizoram, Mr. Aravindh S., Advocate, Mr. C. Rubavathi, Advocate, Mr. Puneet Jain, Advocate, Ms. Christi Jain, Advocate, Mr. Yogit Kamat, Advocate, Mr. Umang Mehta, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate, Mr. Pai Amit, Advocate, for the U.T. of Puduchery, Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate, Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Advocate, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Advocate, for THE H.C. of M.P., Mr. Abhimanyu Jhamba, Advocate, Ms. Thonpinad Thangal, Advocate, Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Advocate, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Advocate, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., Advocate, Mr. Karun Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Anupam Nag, Advocate, Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate, Ms. Jagriti Bharti, Advocate, Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Advocate, Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Advocate, Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Advocate, M/S. Plr Chambers and Co., Advocate, Ms. Manisha Ambwani, Advocate, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Advocate, Mr. V.K. Biju, Advocate, Ms. Ria Sachthey, Advocate, Mr. Chetanya Singh, Advocate, Mr. Parthsarthi M. Saraf, Advocate, Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shaji George, Advocate, Ms. Vijay Laxmi, Advocate, Mr. Umang Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Shibashish Misra, Advocate, Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Advocate, for the St. of H.P., Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Advocate, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate, Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate, Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Advocate, /AAG, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Advocate, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Advocate, Ms. Jessica Bhardwaj, Advocate, Ms. G. Indira, Advocate, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate, Ms. Eliza Bar, Advocate, for the H.C. of Chhattisgarh, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Advocate, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate, Mr. Neeraj, AAG, Mr. Piyush Beriwal Advocate, Mr. Ankit Raj Advocate, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advocate, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Advocate, Mr. Aviral Saxena, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Gothwal, Advocate, Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, Advocate, Mr. Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate, Ms. Nina Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Ananya Marwah, Advocate, Ms. Ruchika Joshi, Advocate, Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, Advocate, Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Advocate, for the St. of Nagaland, Mr. Ravindra Lokhande, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Atrey, Advocate, for the State of Goa, Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Sunil Saraogi, Advocate, Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate, for the St of Sikkim, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Advocate, Mr. Prannay Joe Sebastian, Advocate, Mr. Anvit Seemansh, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Avni Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Anupam Raina, Advocate, Mr. Sunando Raha, Advocate, Ms. Aswathi M.K., Advocate, for the St.of Chhattisgarh, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Advocate, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Advocate, M/S. Arputham Aruna and Co, Advocate, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advocate, for the H.C. of Sikkim, Mr. Sarad Kr. Singhania, Advocate, Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. Varun Chug, Advocate, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocate, Mr. S.V.Raju, Ld. ASG, Mr. S. K. Singhania, Advocate, Mr. Varun Chugh, Advocate, Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor , Advocate, Sairica Raju, Advocate, Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocate, Mr. G.S.Makker, Advocate, Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate, Ms. Smita Kant, Advocate, Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Advocate, Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Advocate, Ms. Prabhleen Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Advocate, for the U.T. Chandigarh, Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Advocate, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Advocate, Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Advocate, Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate, Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Advocate, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Gopal Jha, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Verma, Advocate, Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Kumar Ranjan Advocate, for the St.of Andhra pradesh, Mr. Upendra Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Advocate, for the St.of Meghalaya, Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, for the H.C. of Uttarakhand, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocate, Mr. P. Mohith Rao, Advocate, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocate, for the St. of Telangana, Mr. R. Nedumaran, Advocate, Mr. Mukul Lather, Advocate, for the High Court of Madras, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate, Mr. Ishaan B., Advocate, for the St. of Tripura/Assam, Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Advocate, Mr. Anando Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Beenu Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Shwetank Singh, Advocate, for the St. of Jharkhand, Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Vinay Garg, Advocate, Mr. G. Prakash, Advocate, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advocate, Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocate, Ms. Anu K Joy, Advocate, Mr. Alim Anvar, Advocate, Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Advocate, Ms. Indira Bhakar Advocate, Mr. Ajay Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Vishva Pal, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Advocate, Ms. Veena Bansal, Advocate, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The judgment emphasizes the need for measures to facilitate the early disposal of cases under the NI Act and the establishment of special courts in states with high pending cases.

Headnote:
NI Act - Facilitation of Case Disposal - 1881 - [Order 1. On 10.03.2021, a Committee was appointed to submit a report specifying steps that should be taken to facilitate early disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). A report has been submitted by the Committee, to which the Amicus Curiae has filed a note making suggestions to some of the observations and recommendations recorded in the report of the Committee. It has been brought to our notice that with respect to practice directions that were to be issued by the High Courts pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 16.04.2021, most of the High Courts have issued practice directions barring the High Courts of Madras, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Patna and Orissa. The learned counsel appearing for the said High Courts submitted that practice directions as observed by this Court in the order dated 16.04.2021 shall be issued expeditiously without any further delay. 2. In respect of pre-summons mediation, National Portal for summons and the scheme for establishment of special courts for cases under the NI Act, the Union of India, the High Courts and the State Governments are directed to submit their suggestions within a period of two weeks from today. In so far as constitution of special courts is concerned, the learned Amicus Curiae has, for the purposes of constitution of special courts under the NI Act, identified states of Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan on the ground that the number of cases pending in these states are higher than the other states. The suggestion made by the learned Amicus Curiae is that five districts in each of the above States, where cases under the NI Act are high, can be selected and one court in each such district be established. The High Courts of Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan can respond to the said suggestion made by the learned Amicus Curiae, within a period of two weeks. 3. List for further directions on 12.05.2022 at 3.00 p.m.]
Fact of the Case:

A Committee was appointed to submit a report specifying steps for early disposal of cases under the NI Act. The Committee's report was submitted, and the Amicus Curiae filed a note making suggestions. Most High Courts issued practice directions, except for Madras, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Patna, and Orissa. The High Courts of the mentioned states were directed to issue practice directions expeditiously.
Finding of the Court:

The Union of India, High Courts, and State Governments were directed to submit suggestions for pre-summons mediation, National Portal for summons, and the scheme for establishment of special courts for cases under the NI Act. The Amicus Curiae identified states with high pending cases and suggested the establishment of special courts in selected districts.
Issues: Facilitation of case disposal under the NI Act, issuance of practice directions by High Courts, pre-summons mediation, National Portal for summons, and establishment of special courts in states with high pending cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court directed the concerned authorities to submit suggestions for various measures to facilitate case disposal under the NI Act and to respond to the suggestion of establishing special courts in selected districts of states with high pending cases.
Final Decision: List for further directions on 12.05.2022 at 3.00 p.m.

ORDER

1. On 10.03.2021, a Committee was appointed to submit a report specifying steps that should be taken to facilitate early disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act"). A report has been submitted by the Committee, to which the Amicus Curiae has filed a note making suggestions to some of the observations and recommendations recorded in the report of the Committee. It has been brought to our notice that with respect to practice directions that were to be issued by the High Courts pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 16.04.2021, most of the High Courts have issued practice directions barring the High Courts of Madras, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Patna and Orissa. The learned counsel appearing for the said High Courts submitted that practice directions as observed by this Court in the order dated 16.04.2021 shall be issued expeditiously without any further delay.

2. In respect of pre-summons mediation, National Portal for summons and the scheme for establishment of special courts for cases under the NI Act, the Union of India, the High Courts and the State Governments are directed to submit their suggestions within a period of two weeks from today. In so far as constitution of special courts is concerned, the learned Amicus Curiae has, for the purposes of constitution of special courts under the NI Act, identified states of Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan on the ground that the number of cases pending in these states are higher than the other states. The suggestion made by the learned Amicus Curiae is that five districts in each of the above States, where cases under the NI Act are high, can be selected and one court in each such district be established. The High Courts of Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan can respond to the said suggestion made by the learned Amicus Curiae, within a period of two weeks.

3. List for further directions on 12.05.2022 at 3.00 p.m.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1429

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAL. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N. I. Act, 1881 – AppellantSMW(Crl.) No. 2 of 2020Decided On : 27-04-2022

The judgment emphasizes the need for measures to facilitate the early disposal of cases under the NI Act and the establishment of special courts in states with high pending cases.

Related Judgments

In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N. I. Act, 1881 VS . - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1429

In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N. I. Act 1881 VS . - 2022 5 Supreme 361

Ram Dhari Pal VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 1377

Harish Yadav VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 644

Ram Dhari Pal VS State of U. P.

Amit Kumar Mishra VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 1979

Lalmani Yadav vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 2674

Pritam Kumar Dubey vs State Of Uttar Pradesh, Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow. - 2025 Supreme(All) 2653

Vikas Singh VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3217

N.Gopalsamy vs S.P.K.Kathiresan - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18494

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N. I. Act, 1881 – Appellant
SMW(Crl.) No. 2 of 2020
Decided On : 27-04-2022