Disposed¶8

M/S Tantia Construction Ltd. v. Emami Capital Markets Ltd.

Calcutta HC1 Apr 2026CRR/2478/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 NI Act pre-deposit; Section 138 NI Act conviction appeal; appeal by person other than drawer; office bearer of accused company; unreasoned appellate order; post-conviction interim compensation; remand for hearing afresh; City Sessions Court Calcutta; Chief Judge; 20% of fine amount; CRR 2425 of 2023; CRR 2478 of 2023; Iswari Prasant Tantia; Tantia Construction Ltd; Emami Capital Markets Ltd; Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.; High Court at Calcutta; 01-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

Revisional applications and connected applications disposed of; impugned pre-deposit order set aside in effect by remanding the matter to the learned appellate court for hearing afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties, with a direction to dispose of the matter at the earliest without unnecessary adjournments. ¶8

M/S Tantia Construction Ltd. Vs Emami Capital Markets Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether an order of pre-deposit can be passed under Section 148 of the NI Act in an appeal filed by a person other than the drawer (here, the office bearer of the accused company) against a judgment and order of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, or whether such order is not sustainable in the eye of law. +1 more

¶5

Ratio / Principle

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

¶6

Key takeaways

Because the impugned order is unreasoned, the matter is remanded back to the learned appellate court for hearing afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties, with a direction to dispose of the matter at the earliest without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party; the question of sustainability of the Section 148 pre-deposit order against a non-drawer appellant was not decided and is left for fresh consideration below.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRR 2425 and 2478 of 2023, High Court at Calcutta, Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J., order dated 01-04-2026) against an appellate order dated June 12, 2023 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in criminal appeal no. 94 of 2023 (arising out of conviction under Section 138 NI Act in case no 3/2798 of 2015), directing the petitioners to deposit 20% of the fine amount as security/pre-deposit under Section 148 NI Act as a condition of the appeal; the appeal had been preferred by the petitioner as office bearer of the accused company, i.e., a person other than the drawer. Held: the appellate court recorded submissions and passed the post-conviction interim compensation/pre-deposit order without assigning any reasons; the matter was accordingly remanded to the appellate court for hearing afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties, with a direction to dispose of the matter expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments. The sustainability of a Section 148 pre-deposit order against a non-drawer appellant was not adjudicated and remains open. Revisional applications disposed of.

¶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