https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309655 A direction requiring deposit of 20% of the cheque amount pending appeal was treated as interlocutory because it did not finally determine the parties' rights, so revisional interference under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was barred and the revision was not maintainable. On merits, the court applied the settled reading of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that "may" is ordinarily to be read as "shall," requiring appellate courts to direct deposit of at least 20% of the compensation or fine amount. The impugned deposit condition was therefore within jurisdiction and was upheld. en-us Tue, 30 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Sep 2023 21:46:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309655 A direction requiring deposit of 20% of the cheque amount pending appeal was treated as interlocutory because it did not finally determine the parties' rights, so revisional interference under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was barred and the revision was not maintainable. On merits, the court applied the settled reading of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that "may" is ordinarily to be read as "shall," requiring appellate courts to direct deposit of at least 20% of the compensation or fine amount. The impugned deposit condition was therefore within jurisdiction and was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309655