Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Habib Abbas Fakih vs Altaf Yousuf Naik on 27 January, 2021 cites

Makwana Mangaldas Tulsidas vs The State Of Gujarat on 5 March, 2020

8. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, it took about 10 years for the complainant to get the said complaint bearing S.C.C. No. 589 of 2010 decided from the Trial Court. He submitted that, the accused is successful in protracting the said proceedings for more than nine and half years. That, in Special Leave to Appeal No.7589 of 2018 preferred by the accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the Trial Court to decide 5/13 ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 23:53:19 ::: Tandale 8.Cri.wpst-4770-20 aw Cri.wpst-7963-20.odt the said complaint within a period of 3 months, as it was pending for 9 years and it was only thereafter the Trial Court disposed off the said complaint. He submitted that, the accused has been directed to pay a total sum of Rs.1,88,30,000/- to the complainant by the Trial Court and as per the directions of the Appellate Court, the accused to deposit only 25% of the said amount during the pendency of the said Appeal is insufficient. Mr. Desai by relying on the observations made by the Apex Court, in the case of Makwana Mangaldas Tulsidas Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. in S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5464 of 2016 dated 05th March 2020 (downloaded from internet site 'Indiankanoon'), submitted that, a matter which is supposed to be disposed off summarily by the Trial Court in six months, took about ten years for disposal at the Trial Court level. That, it will take substantial time even to decide the Appeal and for that reason the complainant should not be further made to suffer. He submitted that, proviso to Section 148(1) of N.I. Act permits an additional compensation to be awarded than the interim compensation paid by the appellant under Section 143A of the Act and therefore the Court has every power to direct the accused to pay more interim compensation over and above twenty percent to the complainant. He submitted that, the accused was responsible for delay in conducting the trial. That either of the parties herein had to approach the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court on eight occasions, i.e.on five occasions before the High Court and on three occasions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore it is the accused who is 6/13 ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 23:53:19 ::: Tandale 8.Cri.wpst-4770-20 aw Cri.wpst-7963-20.odt responsible for the delay. He tendered across the bar a compilation of various Orders passed by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submitted that, therefore the amount of interim compensation may be enhanced and the accused may be directed to deposit entire compensation amount in the Registry of the Appellate Court during the pendency of the Appeal. He also submitted that, though the complainant has not impugned Order dated 28th September 2020 passed below Exh.20, the direction for executing indemnity bond of Rs.5,000/- is improper and the said direction may be suitably modified.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1