Justice Navin Chawla

Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes liable to pay Interim Compensation only “drawer of the cheque” (Company) and not other persons who may be deemed to have committed the offence under Section 138 due to Section 141 of the NI Act – Prakash Vasant Ajgaonkar and Ors. Vs. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr. – Delhi High Court

In this important decision, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:

(i) What is also relevant is that Section 143A of the NI Act empowers the Court to pass a direction for payment of interim compensation only against the “drawer of the cheque”. In the present case, admittedly, the drawer of the cheques is the company and not the Petitioners. The Petitioners have been arrayed as accused invoking Section 141 of the NI Act.
(ii) It is to be noted that Section 143A of the NI Act, though inserted post the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Hada (supra) and N. Harihara Krishana (supra), still makes only the “drawer of the cheque”, and not the other persons, who may be deemed to have committed the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act due to Section 141 of the NI Act, liable to pay the interim compensation. It is not for this Court to read into Section 143A of the NI Act, the deeming provision of Section 141 of the NI Act. If that was the intent of the Legislature, Section 143A of the NI Act would have expressly stipulated the same.

Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes liable to pay Interim Compensation only “drawer of the cheque” (Company) and not other persons who may be deemed to have committed the offence under Section 138 due to Section 141 of the NI Act – Prakash Vasant Ajgaonkar and Ors. Vs. The State NCT of Delhi and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Proceeding relating to any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has to mean proceeding filed before Special Court in relation to the property or the record so attached, seized or frozen – Mr. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. – Delhi High Court

In this case, Directorate of Enforcement carried search and seizure on the premises of the Resolution Professional of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. and seized various documents, records, digital devices, and gold and diamond jewellery from the Resolution Professional.

The issue is the meaning to be prescribed to the words ‘the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a Court’ in Section 8(3)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Hon’ble High Court holds that:
(i) The Complaint which is pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court, does not name the petitioner herein as an accused. In fact, it names the petitioner as one of the witness. It also does not make a mention of the documents or the property seized from the petitioner.
(ii) The powers of attachment, seizure and freezing of the properties and records becomes final on the order passed by the Special Court in relation thereto. The words ‘proceedings relating to any offence under this Act’ appearing in Section 8(3)(a) of the Act, therefore, has to be read in light of the above provisions to mean only a proceeding that is pending before a Special Court in relation to the property or records that are so attached or seized or frozen or with the respect to the person from whom such property was seized or recovered.
(iii) The provisions of the Act have to be reasonably read and in a harmonious manner with other provisions. It is also to be remembered that the power of attachment, seizure, and freezing of the properties and records, is a draconian provision that has to be strictly construed.
(iv) The Explanation to Section 8(3) of the Act is, therefore, not attracted to the facts of the present case and cannot extend the period of retention of the seized documents and property of the petitioner.

Proceeding relating to any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has to mean proceeding filed before Special Court in relation to the property or the record so attached, seized or frozen – Mr. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not exclude application of Sec. 24 of CPC to Commercial Disputes having a specified value | A Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge is not a Court subordinate to District Judge | Power u/s 24 of CPC to transfer Suit is not available to District and Session Judge – Namita Gupta Vs. Suraj Holdings Ltd. – Delhi High Court

In this important judgment on Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and CPC, Hon’ble High Court has held that:
(i) Commercial Courts are distinct from the Ordinary Civil Courts.
(ii) Commercial Courts would be a Court Subordinate to the High Courts.
(iii) If a Suit raises a Commercial Dispute of a Specified Value, the Ordinary Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the same, and it must, therefore, return the plaint in exercise of its power under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC. on return of the plaint, the plaintiff may, after making necessary corrections in the pleadings, present the plaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
(iv) Section 24 of the CPC is not a provision which has been amended by the said Schedule. It, therefore, continues to apply in full force to a Suit in respect of a Commercial Dispute of a Specified Value.
(v) A Commercial Court, constituted under Section 3 of the Act, would be a Court subordinate to the High Court.
(vi) Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge do not still become subordinate to the District Court for purposes of Section 24 of the CPC.
(v) The power under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer the Suit, is not available to learned the District and Session Judge.
(vi) The Additional District Judge had no power to place the file of the Suit before the Principal District and Sessions Judge for it to be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not exclude application of Sec. 24 of CPC to Commercial Disputes having a specified value | A Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge is not a Court subordinate to District Judge | Power u/s 24 of CPC to transfer Suit is not available to District and Session Judge – Namita Gupta Vs. Suraj Holdings Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

In an application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Court would not hold mini-trial or an elaborate review so as to usurp the jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Mrs. Vinnu Goel Vs. Mr. Satish Goel & Ors. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that while considering an application under Section 8 of the Act, the Court is to only prima facie determine the existence of an Arbitration Agreement, and only if it is found manifestly and ex facie that no Arbitration Agreement is in existence, that the Court would refuse to refer the parties to the arbitration. The Court by default would refer the matter to arbitration, when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable and when consideration thereof, in a summary proceeding, would be insufficient and inconclusive. The Court would not hold mini-trial or an elaborate review so as to usurp the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal at this stage.

In an application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Court would not hold mini-trial or an elaborate review so as to usurp the jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Mrs. Vinnu Goel Vs. Mr. Satish Goel & Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not sit as a Court of Appeal against the findings of Arbitral Tribunal – ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HT Media Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that it is settled law that the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act does not sit as a Court of Appeal against the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal. Its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act is rather limited and even a contravention of a statute, that is not linked to a public policy or public interest, cannot be a ground for setting aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Act. Therefore, even assuming that the learned Sole Arbitrator made a mistake in the interpretation of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, in my view, it cannot be a ground to interfere with the Arbitral Award in the exercise of the limited jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act.

The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not sit as a Court of Appeal against the findings of Arbitral Tribunal – ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HT Media Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top