Delhi District Court
Samayak Projects Pvt Ltd vs Nishi Exports Pvt Ltd on 12 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) (EAST DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 90/2025, 91/2025, 92/2025, 93/2025,
94/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025, 99/2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director
2. Sh. Satender Kr. Jain, Director
M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Both At: 111, First Floor,
Antriksh Bhawan, 22,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001 ...Revisionist
Versus
1. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorize Director,
2. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Director
M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Both At: Office at: C-61,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092. ...Respondents
Instituted on : 27.03.2025 (except CR No. 99/2025)
02.04.2025 (CR No. 99/2025)
Reserved on : 05.08.2025
Pronounced on : 12.09.2025
ORDER
1. By this order, eight revision petitions assailing eight identical orders (all dated 02.12.2024) passed by the court of Ld. JMFC, M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12 17:35:10 +0530 East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in eight Complaint Cases all titled as M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the revisionist company was directed to pay interim compensation to the tune of 20% of the aggregate amount of cheques in question in each complaint to the complainant company (M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd.) within 30 days from the date of order, shall be disposed of.
2. Along with this revision petition, an application u/s 438 BNSS seeking ex-parte ad-interim stay of proceedings before the trial court had been made. The said application was not pressed by the revisionists.
3. No reply to revision petition was filed on behalf of respondents and they straighaway proceeded to advance arguments. Ld. Counsel for the respondents had stated that the impugned orders were in consonance with the extant applicable law. He claimed that the orders assailed were interlocutory in nature and revision petitions against these orders could not be entertained. He further submitted that the revision petitions were devoid of merit and the same were filed only to protract the proceedings before the trial court. He prayed that these petitions be dismissed.
4. Arguments on the revision petitions were heard in extenso on earlier occasions. All material available on record including the TCRs have been perused. My observations on the issues agitated are delineated hereinafter.
5. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to advert to the facts which led to the filing of eight criminal complaints. The revisionist company M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12 17:35:21 +0530 approached the complainant company for loan of Rs.3,25,00,000/- and the same was advanced. Loan agreement dated 03.04.2017 was executed in that regard. Even before execution of the loan agreement, the revisionist company was liable to pay Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the complainant company. Thus, after availing the loan, the revisionist company became liable to pay Rs.4,75,00,000/- along with 18% per annum interest to complainant company. The loan alongwith interest was repayable by 31.03.2019. The revisionist company repaid Rs.75,00,000/- with interest till September, 2018 but thereafter it expressed its inability to repay the loan by 31.03.2019. Supplementary agreenents were executed between both the companies resulting in extension of time for repayment of loan alongwith interest thereon till 31.03.2020. For discharge of its liability, the revisionist company issued 22 cheques totaling Rs.5,19,42,328/- in favour of the complainant company. All the 22 cheques on presentation were dishonoured for the same reason 'Payment stopped by Drawer'. The demand notice sent to the revisionist compnay to repay the aggregate amount of cheques dishonoured within 15 days of receipt of that notice, remained unheeded. The complainant company was left with no recourse but to file 8 complaints u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act').
6. On applications moved under section 143A of The Act in those eight complaints, the orders for payment of 20% of aggregate amount of cheques in question (in each complaint) within 30 days were passed by the trial court. However, the revisionists have averred that out of total liability, Rs.2,25,00,000/- stands paid by the revisionist company to the complainant company. Revisionists also claimed that this money M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 3 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12 17:35:31 +0530 was paid after filing of applications u/s 143A NI Act but before the date of passing of impugned orders. It is the grouse of the revisionists that the court had not taken this fact into consideration and despite about 40% of loan amount being paid till the date of decision on applications, the directions for payment of 20% amount were given. Revisionists contended that the impugned orders are not sustainable especially when considered in light of the object with which section 143A of The Act was inserted into The Act, so the same are liable to be set aside.
7. Firstly, the issue of maintainability of these revision petitions shall be decided. To decide the maintainability, it is imperative to determine whether the orders passed by the trial court on 02.12.2024 were interlocutory or not. At this juncture, it is profitable to reproduce in verbatim section 438 BNSS (which corrosponds to section 397 Cr.PC) which reads as follows:-
438. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- section and of section 439.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 4 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12 17:35:41 +0530 application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
Section 438(2) BNSS makes it exceedingly clear that the power of revision cannot be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order. The Supreme Court of India in the judgment in case of Amar Nath and Ors. vs State of Haryana and Ors., 1977 AIR 2185, took note of the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Cr.PC, 1973 and came to the conclusion that the power of revision against interlocutory orders was taken away with the avowed purpose of cutting out delays and ensuring that accused persons got a fair trial without much delay. While interpreting sub section (2) of Section 397 Cr.PC, the Apex Court defined interlocutory order as an order of a purely interim or temporary nature which does not decide or touch upon the important rights or liabilities of the parties. The Apex Court went on to add that any order which substantially affects the rights of accused or decides certain rights of parties cannot be termed as interlocutory order. The order summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, bail orders, calling for reports and other such steps in aid of pending proceeding are interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under section 397 Cr.PC (438 BNSS).
8. The Apex Court in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja vs CBI, AIR 2017 SC 3620, while dealing with interlocutory orders observed that there are three categories of orders that a court can pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. It further observed that revision jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of a final order and qua an intermediate order. The Apex Court explained that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed it has the effect M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 5 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12 17:35:49 +0530 of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order for example (i) order taking cognizance of offence and summoning an accused, (ii) an order for framing charge. When these orders are reversed it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Thus, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way the proceedings would continue.
9. In the case of Sanjay P S vs Abhishek M, Crl. Petition no. 5944 of 2023 decided on 28 July 2023, the Karnataka High Court held that the order passed on an application u/s 143A of The Act was not an interlocutory order. The relevant portion of that judgment is reproduced as under:-
All these judgments considered the purport of an application under Section 143A of the Act and its closure and would hold that revision before the Court of Sessions under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. would be maintainable as an order on the application filed under Section 143A of the Act is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate order. Therefore, I answer the issue that has arisen for consideration holding that an order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Act, is not interlocutory order, but an intermediate order, as the application is filed, and the application is closed, under the said provision, determining the rights and liabilities of parties qua the application and revision petition before the Court of Sessions on the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 143A either allowing the application, or rejecting it, would be maintainable for the aggrieved party, be it the complainant or the accused to approach.
10. In the case of Hitendra vs Shankar, 2019 SCC Online Bom. 5644, the Bombay High Court observed that if the rights of parties are affected by an order then the same can not be termed as Interlocutory. Section 143A of The Act determines the rights of the parties with regard to interim compensation. Even the test laid down in Amar Nath (supra) M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 6 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12 17:36:01 +0530 is duly applicable to the order passed u/s 143A of The Act as the order dated 02.12.2024, if reversed would have the effect of terminating the proceedings (qua interim compensation) u/s 143A of The Act. Hence, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts, this court is of the view that the order passed u/s 143A of The Act is not an interlocutory order and revision petition against such an order is maintainable. Accordingly, the present revision petitions are held to be maintainable.
11. As regards the factors to be considered by a court while deciding the application for grant of interim compensation, the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs The State Of Jharkhand, (2024) 3 SCR 438, held as follows:-
16. When the court deals with an application under Section 143A of the N.I. Act, the Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application under sub-
section (1) of Section 143A. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, by itself, is no ground to direct the payment of interim compensation. The reason is that the presumption is rebuttable. The question of applying the presumption will arise at the trial. Only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case, a direction can be issued to pay interim compensation. At this stage, the fact that the accused is in financial distress can also be a consideration. Even if the Court concludes that a case is made out for grant of interim compensation, the Court will have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. Even at this stage, the Court will have to consider various factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant and the paying capacity of the accused. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie a plausible defence, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation. We may note that the factors required to be considered, which we have set out above, are not exhaustive. There could be several other factors in the facts of a given case, such as, the pendency of a civil suit, etc. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all the relevant factors.
M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 7 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12 17:36:27 +0530 ...................................
19. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarised as follows:
a. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word "may" used in the provision cannot be construed as "shall." b. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors.
c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows:
i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration.
ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case. iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.
iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc. v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive.
From perusal of this extract, it can be easily deciphered that the grant of interim compensation u/s 143A of The Act is not mandatory. Furthermore, even factors like pendency of other civil proceedings between the parties qua the same transaction is also to be given due weightage while deciding the application for interim compensation.
12. Regarding the scope of criminal revision and exercise of jurisdiction in a revision, the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr., AIR Online 2012 SC 668, observed as follows:-
M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 8 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12 17:36:46 +0530
12. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be.
Though the section does not specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex liquid alicuiconcedit, conceder videtur id quo res ipsa esse non protest, i.e., when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The Section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the Court is not permitted to be abused.
So far as the order passed by a trial court is concerned, in a revision petition the same can be ordinarily interfered with only if there is some illegality or perversity in the same. However in exceptional circumstances, the power vested in a court under section 397 Cr.P.C (438 BNSS) can also be exercised to secure the ends of justice.
13. The object of NI Act (Amendment) Act, 2018 (whereby section 143A was inserted into The Act) was to provide relief to genuine complainants during the pendency of the cheque dishonour case, so that they are not left waiting for years on account of undue delays and dilatory tactics of the accused (See M/s. JSB Cargo & Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State & Anr., 2022 (296) DLT 250).
14. The orders dated 02.12.2024 do not indicate that the trial court took note of payments totalling Rs.2,25,00,000/- made by the revisionist compnay to the complainant company. This amount paid is more than 40% of the aggregate amount of all the 22 cheques which M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 9 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12 17:36:54 +0530 were dishonoured. As noted earlier, it is not mandatory for a court to grant interim compensation under The Act.
15. From the details of payments made by revisionist company to complainant company (available in TCRs), it is evident that such payments were made before passing of the impugned orders. It is not known whether during arguments on application u/s 143A of The Act, the trial court was even apprised of the said payments or not. Be that as it may, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 438 BNSS in order to secure the ends of justice. It is not a case where the complainant has not received any amount qua the dishonoured cheques, albeit the amount was received in arbitration proceedings. The amount recieved was towards discharge of the same debt or liability for which the 22 cheques were issued by the revisionist company. It would be a travesty of justice, if having paid 40% of the total debt amount, the revisionist company is further burdened with additional payment of 20% of the aggregate amount of all 22 cheques. It has to be kept in mind that presumption of innocence is in favour of the revisionist company. Considering the facts and circumstances, all the impugned orders dated 02.12.2024 are set- aside as the same are not in accordance with the object of section 143A of The Act and while passing those orders, the directions given by Apex Court in the judgment of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra) have not been adhere to.
16. Copy of this order be given dasti, free of cost against ac- knowledgment to the ld. counsels for all the parties. A copy of this order be also sent to the trial court or its successor court for information. TCR M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 10 of 14 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12 17:37:02 +0530 be also sent back to the court concerned latest by 15.09.2025. File of present revision petition be consigned to record room after completion of due formalities.
Dictated and announced in open Court on 12th September, 2025 Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR Date:
THAKUR 2025.09.12 17:37:10 +0530 (Anurag Thakur) Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi This order consists of 14 pages and each and every page of this order is signed by me.
Post Script Table of 22 cheques on next page.
M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 11 of 14
Cheque Cheque Date Amount (Rs.) Bank and Cheque Cheque Cheque Return
Number, Branch Deposit Date Return Date Receive Date Reason
Bank & Name of
Branch Complaina
nt
003576 31.03.2020 50,00,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Fifty Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Only Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G.
Marg
003577 31.03.2020 50,00,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Fifty Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Only Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G.
Marg
003578 31.03.2020 50,00,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Fifty Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Only Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G.
Marg
003579 31.03.2020 50,00,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Fifty Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Only Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G.
Marg
003580 31.03.2020 50,00,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Fifty Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Only Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G.
Marg
003581 31.03.2020 50,00,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Fifty Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Only Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G.
Marg
003582 31.03.2020 50,00,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Fifty Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Only Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G.
Marg
003583 31.03.2020 50,00,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Fifty Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Only Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G.
Marg
003584 31.03.2020 16,20,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Sixteen Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Twenty Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Thousand
Marg Only
003585 31.03.2020 16,20,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Sixteen Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 12 of 14
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12
17:37:27
+0530
Mahindra Twenty Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Thousand
Marg Only
003586 31.03.2020 16,20,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Sixteen Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Twenty Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Thousand
Marg Only
003587 31.03.2020 16,20,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Sixteen Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Twenty Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Thousand
Marg Only
003588 31.03.2020 16,20,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Sixteen Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Twenty Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Thousand
Marg Only
003589 31.03.2020 16,20,000 Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak (Sixteen Lakh Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Twenty Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Thousand
Marg Only
003590 31.03.2020 10,28,095 (Ten Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak Lakh Twenty Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Eight Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Thousand
Marg Ninety Five
Only
003591 31.03.2020 1,80,000 (One Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak Lakh Eighty Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Thousand Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Only
Marg
003592 31.03.2020 1,80,000 (One Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak Lakh Eighty Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Thousand Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Only
Marg
003593 31.03.2020 1,80,000 (One Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak Lakh Eighty Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Thousand Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Only
Marg
003594 31.03.2020 1,80,000 (One Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak Lakh Eighty Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Thousand Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Only
Marg
003595 31.03.2020 1,80,000 (One Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak Lakh Eighty Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Thousand Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Only
Marg
003596 31.03.2020 1,80,000 (One Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak Lakh Eighty Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Thousand Vihar Drawer
M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 13 of 14
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12
17:37:35
+0530
Bank, K.G. Only
Marg
003597 31.03.2020 1,14,233 (One Indusind 24.06.2020 25.06.2020 30.06.2020 Payment
Kotak Lakh Fourteen Bank Preet stopped by
Mahindra Thousand Two Vihar Drawer
Bank, K.G. Hundred
Marg Thirty Three
Only
Total 5,19,42,328/-
___________
M/s Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Nishi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 14 of 14
Digitally
signed by
ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.09.12
17:37:44
+0530