Petitioner convicted under Section 138 NI Act sought reduction of the 15% fine deposit required for suspension of sentence, citing financial hardship. The High Court noted the ASJ had already reduced it from 20% to 15% and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~38
MR SUMAN CHADHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate.
versus
CANARA BANK .....Respondent Through: Mr. Babu Malayil, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R % 13.01.2025
CRL.M.A.617/2025 (Exemption)
CRL.M.C. 112/2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 14:38:24
tremendous financial constraints and is not in a position to deposit 15% as directed by the learned ASJ, while suspending the Order on Sentence. It is submitted that the amount may further be reduced.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
JANUARY 13, 2025/RS
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 14:38:24
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the 15% deposit requirement imposed by the ASJ for suspension of sentence in a Section 138 NI Act conviction could be reduced further.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr Suman Chadha
Canara Bank
Neena Bansal Krishna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
