Disposed¶26

Ishwari Prasad Tantia v. Emami Capital Markets Ltd.

Calcutta HC1 Apr 2026CRR/2425/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 NI Act pre-deposit; Section 138 NI Act conviction; appeal by office bearer of accused company / person other than drawer; post-conviction interim compensation; appellate order without reasons; remand for hearing afresh; security deposit as condition of payment of appeal; 20% of fine amount; Chief Judge City Sessions Court Calcutta; criminal appeal no. 94 of 2023; case no 3/2798 of 2015; Emami Capital Markets Ltd; Tantia Construction Ltd; Iswari Prasad Tantia.

What did the court decide?

Remand of the matter to the learned appellate court for hearing afresh with opportunity of hearing to both parties, with directions for expeditious disposal without unnecessary adjournments; revisional and connected applications disposed of. ¶26

Ishwari Prasad Tantia Vs Emami Capital Markets Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether an order of pre-deposit under Section 148 of the NI Act can lawfully be passed in an appeal against a judgement and order of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act when the appeal is preferred by a person other than the drawer, i.e., an office bearer of the accused company; or whether such order is not sustainable in the eye of law. +1 more

¶21

Ratio / Principle

On careful perusal of the impugned order, this Court found that the learned appellate court recorded the submissions and passed the order without assigning any reason for such order, when it was a post-conviction interim compensation (pre-deposit).

¶22

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded back to the learned appellate court for hearing afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, and the learned court is directed to make all endeavours to dispose of the matter at the earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.) — CRR 2425 of 2023 (Iswari Prasad Tantia) and CRR 2478 of 2023 (M/s Tantia Construction Ltd) v. Emami Capital Markets Ltd. Revision against order dated June 12, 2023 of the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in criminal appeal no. 94 of 2023 (arising out of judgement and order dated April 11, 2023 in case no 3/2798 of 2015) directing the petitioners to deposit 20% of the fine amount before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta as security deposit as a condition of payment of appeal. The point raised was whether a pre-deposit order under Section 148 of the NI Act can be passed in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act filed by a person other than the drawer (an office bearer of the accused company). Finding that the appellate court recorded the submissions and passed the post-conviction interim compensation/pre-deposit order without assigning any reason, the Court remanded the matter to the learned appellate court for hearing afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties, with directions to dispose of the matter at the earliest without unnecessary adjournments; the revisional applications and connected applications were disposed of. The legality of pre-deposit under Section 148 in an appeal by a non-drawer was left to be decided afresh by the appellate court.

¶1

¶2

9-10.

¶3

01-04-2026 (ct. no.34) debajyoti

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

¶5

CRR 2425 of 2023 + IA NO:CRAN/1/2023 + CRAN/9/2026

¶6

Iswari Prasad Tantia Vs. Emami Capital Markets Ltd

¶7

With

¶8

CRR 2478 of 2023 + IA NO:CRAN/1/2023 + CRAN/9/2026

¶9

M/s Tantia Construction Ltd Vs. Emami Capital Markets Ltd

¶10

Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Indrajit Adhikari, Adv., Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwary, Adv., Mr. Amitabrata Hait, Adv., Mr. Suman Majumder, Adv.

¶11

… For the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Adv.

¶13

… For the Opposite Party.

¶14

The matter is taken up for hearing.

¶15

This revisional application is filed against an order dated June 12, 2023 assed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court of Calcutta in criminal appeal no. 94 of 2023 arising out of judgement and order dated April 11, 2023 in connection with case no 3/2798 of 2015 whereby petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the fine amount before the Court of Learned Chief

¶16

¶17

Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta as security deposit as a condition of payment of appeal.

¶18

At this stage, the learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, representing the petitioner, submits that since the order passed by the appellate court is devoid of any reasoning the matter should be remanded back for hearing afresh.

¶19

The learned advocate representing the opposite party primarily raises objection. However, the learned advocate conceded to the fact that no reason has been assigned by the learned appellate court.

¶20

FACTS:-

¶21

The point raised by the Learned Senior Advocate before this Court that whether order of pre- deposit can be passed under Section 148 of NI Act in an appeal filed by a person other than drawer against a judgement and order of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act or whether the order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Appellate Court erred in its approach to Section 148 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 by passing an order of pre deposit against the petitioner in an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of NI Act when such appeal was preferred by the petitioner in the capacity office bearer of the accused company.

¶22

On careful perusal of the order impugned this Court finds that the learned appellate court recorded the submissions and passed such order without assigning any reason for such order when it was a post-conviction interim compensation .

¶23

Therefore the matter is remanded back to the learned appellate court for hearing afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties .Tshe learned court is further directed to make all endeavours to dispose of the

¶24

¶25

matter at the earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶26