Sri. Raghavendra Kotian vs Sri. Achan Kunju
2023 Latest Caselaw 2465 Kant

                                         -1-
                                                    WP No. 10214 of 2023




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2023


                                        BEFORE


                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                    WRIT PETITION NO. 10214 OF 2023 (GM-RES)


               BETWEEN:

               SRI RAGHAVENDRA KOTIAN
               S/O JAGANNATYHA KOTIAN,
               AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
               NO.3032, 3RD FLOOR,
               SHOBA CHINNAMON APARTMENT,
               HARALURU ROAD, NEAR H.S.R. LAYOUT,
               BENGALURU - 560 068.
                                                            ...PETITIONER
               (BY SRI JAGADEESHACHARI., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI AND:
BK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF         SRI ACHAN KUNJU,
KARNATAKA        S/O M.KOSHYPANICKER,
               AGED 75 YEARS,
               NO.271, MUTHANALLUR VILLAGE AND POST,
               SARJAPURA HOBLI,
               ANEKAL TALUK,
               BENGALURU - 560 099.
                                                          ...RESPONDENT
                                 -2-
                                             WP No. 10214 of 2023




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AS PER ANNEXURE-D DATED. 29.04.2023 IN
C.C.NO.29826/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE AND
QUASH THE SAME BY WAY OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.,


    THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an

order dated 29.04.2023 passed in C.C.No.29826 of 2021 by the

XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

2. Heard Sri.Jagadeeshachari, learned counsel appearing

for petitioner.

3. Petitioner is the accused; respondent, the complainant.

The two had a transaction amongst themselves, in furtherance

of which the petitioner has issued certain cheques in favour of

the complainant/respondent. The cheques having been

returned for want of sufficient funds leads the

respondent/complainant to the concerned Court in a proceeding

WP No. 10214 of 2023

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881

('N.I.Act' for short).

4. At the time when the matter was posted for its cross-

examination the respondent files an application under Section

143A of the N.I.Act seeking interim compensation of 20% of

the amount so claimed, as is mandated in law, in terms of the

aforesaid provisions. The concerned Court, in terms of its order

impugned, grants 10% of the amount to be paid to the

complainant during the pendency of the proceedings, in terms

of Section 143A of the N.I. Act. It is this order that drives the

petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

contend that the matter was set for cross-examination, at that

point in time, the application could not have been filed and

therefore, seeks an interim order of stay of payment of 10% of

the amount during the pendency of the proceedings, as the

cross-examination would be over by then and the result would

be out.

WP No. 10214 of 2023

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective

parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue

now lies in a narrow compass which is whether the order

impugned directing payment of 10% of the cheque amount

requires to be interfered with or otherwise?

8. The concerned Court has by its detailed order, directed

payment of 10% of the amount. The reasons rendered by the

concerned Court are both cogent and coherent, as it bears

reference to the necessary guidelines laid down by this Court to

be followed by the concerned Court while directing payment of

20% or less than that amount, under Section 143A of the

N.I.Act. All these tenets are followed by the concerned Court,

while quoting the judgments themselves.

9. I do not find any error to interfere with the order

passed by the concerned Court directing payment of 10% of

the amount, as interim compensation under Section 143A of

WP No. 10214 of 2023

the N.I.Act. The order is in compliance with the mandate of the

statute and the orders passed by this Court. Therefore, the

petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BKP