High Court deems Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act as directory, not mandatory. The High Court allowed the petition seeking to quash the order directing payment of interim compensation under Section 143(A) of the Negotiable ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
High Court deems Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act as directory, not mandatory.
The High Court allowed the petition seeking to quash the order directing payment of interim compensation under Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court found that the Trial Court had misinterpreted the provision as mandatory, failing to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to respond before passing the order. The High Court held that Section 143(A) is directory, not mandatory, and set aside the order, remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration within one month.
Issues: Petition seeking quashing of order directing payment of interim compensation under Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash an order passed by the Trial Court directing the petitioner to pay interim compensation to the respondent under Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed mechanically without proper application of mind and cited a Delhi High Court case to argue that Section 143(A) is directory, not mandatory. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court misinterpreted the provision as mandatory and sought to set aside the order.
The High Court considered the submissions made by the petitioner and noted that the Delhi High Court and the Karnataka High Court had held that Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is directory, not mandatory. The High Court observed that the Trial Court did not provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond before passing the impugned order, despite the petitioner not pleading guilty to the notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Act. The High Court found that the Trial Court had granted interim compensation in a routine manner without proper application of mind, misreading the provision as mandatory.
Based on the above analysis, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Trial Court to reconsider the grant of interim compensation to the complainant/respondent under Section 143(A) in accordance with the law within one month of receiving a certified copy of the High Court's order.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
