Interim compensation under cheque dishonour law upheld where liability objection was raised belatedly in writ proceedings.

Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act empowers the trial court to direct interim compensation to the drawer of a cheque, subject to the statutory ceiling of twenty per cent of the cheque amount. In the cited matter, the challenge to that direction was found unsustainable because the petitioners were directors of the company, one was the authorised signatory who signed the cheque, the liability objection had not been raised before the trial court, and the writ petition was brought after substantial delay without deposit of the directed amount. The writ jurisdiction was therefore not invoked to disturb the interim compensation order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order directing payment of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deserved interference.

Analysis: Section 143A empowers the trial court to direct the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation, subject to the statutory ceiling of twenty per cent of the cheque amount. The petitioners were directors of the company and petitioner No. 1 had signed the cheque as authorised signatory. The objection that they were not liable as drawers was not raised before the trial court and was taken for the first time in writ proceedings. The petition was also filed after a substantial delay and the directed amount had not been deposited. The reliance on the cited Supreme Court decision was found inapposite on the facts, and the interim order relied upon from another High Court had no final determination.

Conclusion: The challenge to the interim compensation order was rejected and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The petition did not warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction, and the interim compensation direction under Section 143A remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated writ challenge to an order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not succeed where the accused are the company's directors and authorised signatory of the cheque, and the objection to liability is raised for the first time before the writ court.

---