Metropolitan Magistrate’s Order for Interim Compensation u/s 143A Remanded for Fresh Decision as Defense Was Not Considered | HC
- Blog|News|FEMA & Banking|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 20 February, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Vandana Kapoor v. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal - [2025] 171 taxmann.com 330 (HC-Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vikas Mahajan, J.
-
Ms Santosh & Noorulislam, Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
J.S. Arora & Ms Sheetal Nagar, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petitioner-accused filed a criminal revision petition against the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) order, in which MM had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 15 lakhs as interim compensation under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to respondent-complainant within two months.
However, the Principal District and sessions Judge dismissed the case. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an instant petition challenging the order directing her to pay interim compensation.
The petitioner submitted that although the cheque was signed by them, they had no liability to respondent, as loan agreement was between respondent and the petitioner’s husband, and the said agreement did not bear the petitioner’s signature.
Further, the petitioner alleged that lower courts had failed to prima facie consider the merits of case or evaluate their defense properly before passing the order.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since the MM and Revisional Court had not prima facie evaluated the merits of the case set up in the complaint as well as the defence of the accused and the factors to be borne in mind for deciding the quantum of interim compensation had also not been adverted to, the impugned order was to be set aside. The matter was to be remanded back to the Trial Court for deciding the application of complainant under section 143A of the Act afresh.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. The State of Jharkhand &Anr., (2024) 3 SCR 438 (para 6) followed.
List of Cases Referred to
- Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. The State of Jharkhand &Anr. 3 SCR 438 (para 4).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
