Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Girnar Traders VS State of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for Aligarh Development Authority VS Megh Singh...
Checking relevance for PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS KAUSARBAG COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Consumer Action Group VS State Of T. N. ...
Checking relevance for Kukreja Construction Company VS State Of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for Sabita Sharma VS State Of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for Avinash Dhavji Naik vs State Of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for Jawahar Hiralal Mehta through his Regd. Power of Attorney Holder Development Agreement dt. 25. 08. 1997 holder Mr. Majid A. Kadar Shaikh VS State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department Government of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for Appasaheb Gurusiddhappa Lakshetti VS State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department...
Checking relevance for Shiji D/o Vanajakumary VS Project Director N. H. Authority of India...
Checking relevance for Avinash Dhavji Naik vs State of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for National Highway Authority of India VS Resham Singh...
Checking relevance for Ramakant Bindal VS State of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS KAMLA...
Checking relevance for H. V. Jayaram VS Industrial Credit And Investment Corporation Of India LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Sarup Singh Gupta VS S. Jagdish Singh...
Checking relevance for Hans Raj VS State Of Haryana...
Checking relevance for Pooja Batra VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for SATENDRA KUMAR GUPTA VS BANARAS IMPROVEMENT TRUST...
SATENDRA KUMAR GUPTA VS BANARAS IMPROVEMENT TRUST - 1958 0 Supreme(All) 206 : Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the Tribunal constituted under the Town Improvement Act, as it is deemed to be a court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings before such a tribunal. Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not discussed in the document.Checking relevance for Sachida Nand Prasad Gupta VS State Of Bihar...
Checking relevance for GANDHIAN INSTITUTE OF STUDIES, VARANASI VS 4TH A. D. J. , VARANASI...
Checking relevance for PANCHAKSHARI VS CHAIRMAN, L. T. , BELUR...
Checking relevance for City & Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) VS Percival Joseph Pareira...
Checking relevance for Ranjit Kumar VS State of Bihar...
Section 143A - Percentage of Compensation: The law permits courts to award interim compensation ranging from 1% to 20% of the cheque amount under Section 143A(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The maximum limit specified is 20% of the cheque amount Faizal Abdul Samad S/o A. I. Abdul Samad VS A. N. Sasidharan S/o Late Narayanan - Kerala.
Discretion and Factors in Awarding Compensation: The award of interim compensation under Section 143A is discretionary, and courts are required to record reasons for the percentage awarded, ensuring the decision aligns with the case's merits and circumstances. The courts may award any amount between 1% and 20%, depending on the case Faizal Abdul Samad S/o A. I. Abdul Samad VS A. N. Sasidharan S/o Late Narayanan - Kerala, Geeta Monga VS Gng Stock Holding Pvt. Ltd. Throught Its Managing Director Sh. Sumit Gupta - Delhi.
Mandatory vs. Directory Nature: The use of the word may in Section 143A(1) indicates that the provision is discretionary and not mandatory, allowing courts flexibility in awarding interim compensation. However, some judgments suggest that considering the object of Section 138, the exercise of this power should be guided by principles of fairness and case meritRakesh Ranjan Shrivastava VS State Of Jharkhand - Supreme Court, Avanish Kumar Gaur VS State of U. P. - Allahabad.
Impact of Court's Decision: When courts grant interim compensation, the amount awarded is deducted from the total fine or compensation later imposed, with the reduction not exceeding 20% of the cheque amount Deccan Charters Pvt. Ltd. Thro Sanjay Saihgal VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat, Avanish Kumar Gaur VS State of U. P. - Allahabad.
Procedural Aspects: Orders under Section 143A are intermediate, non-interlocutory, and can be challenged through revision. The application for interim compensation is to be evaluated on merits, considering the prima facie case, the defense, and the conduct of partiesSanjay P. S. , S/o Suresh VS Abhishek M. , S/o Muniraju K. - Karnataka, Dhanu Krishi Sewa Kendra Thru. Its Proprietor Vishal Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. - Allahabad.
Analysis and Conclusion:The percentage of interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act cannot exceed 20% of the cheque amount. The courts have the discretion to award any amount between 1% and 20%, based on the case's merits, reasons recorded, and conduct of the parties. The use of the word may emphasizes the discretionary nature of the provision, but courts are encouraged to exercise this power judiciously and with proper reasoning.
