SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

AVINASH G.GHAROTE
Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar – Appellant
Versus
Laxmikant Govind Joshi – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Madhur A. Deo, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Bhushan Mohta, Advocate

JUDGMENT

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 Section 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 Section 143-A (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ?

3. The facts in the instant matter, indicate that the respondent/Complainant filed proceedings under Section 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/- and the other for Rs.5,00,000/- issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent which when presented were dishonoured for i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top