Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Section 147 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H on 3 May, 2010
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering
the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.
Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) SCC 663 as clarified by the Apex Court in
Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain
and another 2014 (10) SCC 690, a lenient view be taken and the
petitioner be exempted from payment of compounding fee.
M.P. State Legal Service Authority vs Prateek Jain And Anr on 10 September, 2014
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and ratio of
law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, instead of 15% of
the cheque amount, petitioner/accused is directed to deposit 2,000/- as
compounding fee with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla
within four weeks from today.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1