Petitioner's challenge against interim compensation dismissed; court mandates Rs.10,000 cost for frivolous litigation.
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia, reaffirmed the decision of a lower court to impose interim compensation on Naginder Singh, the petitioner, under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case, Naginder Singh v. Geeta Thakur, revolved around a dishonored cheque amounting to Rs.5,00,000, which was issued by the petitioner as a repayment for a loan.
The trial court had initially directed both the petitioner and a co-accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation. However, upon revision, the Sessions Court modified the order, holding only the petitioner liable, as he was the sole signatory of the dishonored cheque. This decision was in alignment with the Supreme Court's precedent in the Aparna A. Shah case, which restricts liability to the drawer of the cheque.
The petitioner sought to challenge the Sessions Court's order by filing a second revision petition, contending gross injustice. However, the High Court dismissed this petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish any gross injustice warranting the invocation of inherent jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the bar under Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prohibits a second revision petition, could not be bypassed without a substantial demonstration of injustice.
In his defense, the petitioner argued that he had only received Rs.50,000 of the total Rs.5,00,000 loan and thus should not be held accountable for the full cheque amount. The court, however, found this argument unconvincing, noting the petitioner had drawn a cheque for the entire loan amount, which contradicted his claim.
Justice Kathpalia concluded that the petition was frivolous and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a week. The court's decision underscores the judicial system's intolerance for unwarranted litigation and reinforces the accountability of cheque issuers under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Bottom line:-
Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act empowers the trial court to award interim compensation, and the liability to pay such compensation is restricted to the drawer of the dishonoured cheque. The bar under Section 397(3) CrPC [now Section 438(3) BNSS] prohibits the filing of a second revision petition unless gross injustice is established.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [now Section 438(3) BNSS].
Naginder Singh v. Geeta Thakur, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2901925
