Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sunita Rathi vs S.H. Industries Near Nayashahar
2022 Latest Caselaw 8007 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8007 Raj
Judgement Date : 26 May, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunita Rathi vs S.H. Industries Near Nayashahar on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 673/2022

Sunita Rathi W/o Sh. Styanarayan Rathi, Aged About 54 Years, B/c Rathi (Rathi Ji Mawa Wale), R/o Lakhotiyo Ka Chowk, Behind Narsingh Mandir, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. S.h. Industries Near Nayashahar, Bikaner Through Partner Ram Kumar Vyas S/o Sh. Brijendra Kumar Vyas B/c Brahmin, R/o Lakhotiyo Ka Chowk, Behind Narsingh Mandir, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tribhuwan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

26/05/2022

1. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the

trial Court has erred in directing the petitioner to pay a sum of

Rs.1,65,300/- being 20% of the amount of cheque

(Rs.8,26,500/-) while treating the condition under Section 143-A

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to be mandatory.

2. While relying upon the judgment of this Court rendered in

the case of G.K. Construction Company Vs. Balaji Makan

Samagri Stone: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.189/2022,

learned counsel submits that the same should be construed to be

discretionary.

3. On principle, the contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner is correct, however, even if the provision of Section 143-

                                                                                (2 of 2)                  [CRLMP-673/2022]


                                   A     of     the   Negotiable    Instruments           Act,    1881   is   considered

discretionary, then also, the Court is required to consider

petitioner's possible defence in order to justifiably exercise the

discretion.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would meet, if the

petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.80,000/- instead of

Rs.1,65,300/- as compliance of provisions of Section 143-A of the

Act of 1881.

5. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable

within six weeks.

6. In case, the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.80,000/- within

15 days from today recovery of the remaining amount pursuant to

the order dated 06.10.2021, shall remain stayed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 215-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter