In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court delineated the parameters surrounding interim compensation in cases of cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act. In a decision rendered on Friday, March 15, the Court emphasized that the mere initiation of a complaint under the Act does not ipso facto confer the right to seek interim compensation under Section 143A(1) of the Act.
The Court underscored that while Section 143A(1) provides for the grant of interim compensation, such relief is not obligatory. Rather, it falls within the discretionary powers of the court. This ruling elucidates a nuanced understanding of the law, clarifying that the entitlement to interim compensation is contingent upon the specific circumstances of each case and is not an automatic entitlement.
This verdict carries significant implications for cheque dishonour cases, as it establishes a more discerning approach to the grant of interim compensation. It underscores the need for complainants to demonstrate compelling reasons to warrant such relief, shifting the burden away from automatic entitlement and towards a more judicious exercise of judicial discretion.
This decision represents a crucial development in cheque dishonour jurisprudence, signaling a departure from blanket entitlement towards a more nuanced and context-specific approach. It reinforces the principle that legal remedies must be tailored to the individual merits of each case, ensuring fairness and equity in the administration of justice.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
