<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (10) TMI 136 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428578</link>
    <description>Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 gives the trial court discretion to award interim compensation up to twenty per cent of the cheque amount in an appropriate case, mainly to deter delay and protect the payee from dilatory conduct. At that stage, the court need not conduct a detailed merits inquiry into the accused&#039;s defence, such as claims that the cheque was issued as security or was blank, because that would amount to a mini trial and defeat the provision&#039;s object. On the facts, the accused&#039;s conduct and repeated exemptions justified the exercise of discretion, so the challenge under Section 482 CrPC failed and the award was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2022 08:35:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 136 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428578</link>
      <description>Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 gives the trial court discretion to award interim compensation up to twenty per cent of the cheque amount in an appropriate case, mainly to deter delay and protect the payee from dilatory conduct. At that stage, the court need not conduct a detailed merits inquiry into the accused&#039;s defence, such as claims that the cheque was issued as security or was blank, because that would amount to a mini trial and defeat the provision&#039;s object. On the facts, the accused&#039;s conduct and repeated exemptions justified the exercise of discretion, so the challenge under Section 482 CrPC failed and the award was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>