Remanded

S. K. Marketing Thr. Its Proprietor Hassan Khuzema Shafiq v. Kaushik Udyog Limited Thr. Its Director Mukesh Omprakashji Agrawal

Bombay HC6 Oct 2022WP/499/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed interim compensation orders under Section 143-A NI Act passed without recorded reasons. It relied on its own precedents declaring the section directory and restored applications for trial to decide on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 06.06.2022 under Section 143-A NI Act quashed; applications restored to Trial Court for decision on merits with reasoned order within two weeks.

S. K. Marketing Thr. Its Proprietor Hassan Khuzema Shafiq Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 14wp545.22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 545/2022

¶4

(S. K. Marketing thr. its Proprietor Hassan Khuzema Shafiq Vs. Kaushik Udyog Limited)

¶5

with

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 499/2022

¶7

(S. K. Marketing thr. its Proprietor Hassan Khuzema Shafiq Vs. Kaushik Udyog Limited)

¶8

with

¶9

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 500/2022

¶10

(S. K. Marketing thr. its Proprietor Hassan Khuzema Shafiq Vs. Kaushik Udyog Limited)

¶11

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶12

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders

¶13

 Court's or Judge's orders

¶14

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶15

Mr. Gaurav Khond, Advocate with Mr. J. S. Mishra, Advocate for
petitioner.

¶16

Mr. Dara Singh Sindhu, Advocate for respondent.

¶17

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J. DATED : 06/10/2022.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

2.These three petitions of respective accused of
the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (‘N.I. Act’) have challenged the orders
dated 06.06.2022 passed in terms of Section 143-A of
the N. I. Act, directed the petitioners to pay 20% of the
disputed cheque amount. The issue involved in three
petitions is one and the same, as the facts are identical
they are taken together for disposal.

¶20

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner has good case to resist the
application filed by the respondent in terms of Section
143-A of the N. I. Act. Further, he would submit that
the provision of Section 143-A of the N. I. Act being of
directory nature, the Court is obliged to record the

¶21

2 14wp545.22

¶22

reasons before passing the order. To substantiate said
contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this
Court in case of Mr. Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar Vs. Mr.
Laxmikant Govind Joshi (Criminal Writ Petition No.
48/2022, decided on 07.07.2022 with other connected
matters). Perusal of impugned order indicates that the
Court has passed the order by merely referring the
provision of Section 143-A of the N. I. Act. The
impugned orders do not spell the reasons for using
discretion in passing such orders. Already this Court
has taken a view that the provision is of the directory
nature and thus, the Court has to record the reasons
for determining the quantum of interim compensation.

¶23

4.In view of above, it is necessary to direct the
Trial Court to pass reasoned order in view of the above
referred decision of this Court. In the circumstances,
the impugned orders dated 06.06.2022 passed in
S.C.C. No. 5879/2020, S.C.C. No. 5858/2020 and
5892/2020 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶24

5.Theapplicationsfiledby

¶25

respondent/complainant under Section 143-A of the
N.I. Act are restored. The Trial Court after hearing
both side, shall decide those applications on its own
merits without getting influence by this order.

¶26

6.It is made clear that the impugned orders
are set side only because there are no reasons as well
as this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.
The Trial Court shall decide interim applications
within two weeks from 24.11.2022, on which the

¶27

3 14wp545.22

¶28

matters are informed to be scheduled.

¶29

7. Petitions stand disposed of in above terms.

¶30

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶31

Gohane

¶32

JITENDRA BHARAT GOHANE Digitally signed by JITENDRA BHARAT GOHANE Date: 2022.10.10 10:49:53 +0530

S. K. Marketing Thr. Its Proprietor Hassan Khuzema Shafiq v. Kaushik Udyog Limited Thr. Its Director Mukesh Omprakashji Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. K. Marketing Thr. Its Proprietor Hassan Khuzema Shafiq v. Kaushik Udyog Limited Thr. Its Director Mukesh Omprakashji Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu S/O Mahesh Shukla Vs Mrs. Gayatri W/O Himanshu Shukla

Kanchan W/O Gautam Kamble Vs the State Ofmah. Thr. Pso Ps Ajani Nagpur

Wazir Shah S/O Kasam Shah Vs Sheikh Mustaque Sheikh Isa

Roshan Omprakash Nagarkar and 2 Others Vs Reena Vaibhav Nagarkar

Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Ltd., Thr. Director Gopaal Brindaban Agarrwal and Others Vs Haldiram Foods International Pvt. Thr. Its Director Rajendrakumar S/O Shivkishanji Agarwal

S. K. Marketing Thr. Its Proprietor Hassan Khuzema Shafiq Vs Kaushik Udyog Limited Thr. Its Director Mukesh Omprakashji Agrawal