M/s Coromandel International Limited v. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation, 2025
It emphasized the difference between corporate and individual liability, holding that vicarious liability cannot be used to compel employees or signatories to deposit.
Judgement Details
Court
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Date of Decision
26 September 2025
Judges
Justice Sanjay Vashisth
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
A convict under Section 138 NI Act filed an appeal after conviction, challenging the requirement under Section 148 NI Act to deposit 20% of the compensation for bail.
-
The convict argued financial incapacity to deposit the amount and requested bail.
-
The appellate court had been delaying the decision due to non-deposit.
-
A reference was made to decide whether such a deposit condition was valid when liberty is at stake.
Issues
-
Can an appellate court deny bail solely due to non-deposit of 20% compensation under Section 148 NI Act?
-
Is it mandatory to decide such appeals within 60–90 days if deposit is not made?
-
Does Section 148 pass the proportionality test under constitutional scrutiny?
-
Can the complainant seek deposit under Section 148 if no appeal is filed?
Held
-
The direction to deposit 20% under Section 148 is not mandatory for bail.
-
The Liberty of the appellant must not be overridden by an inability to deposit.
-
The appeals must be expedited (60–90 days) in such cases.
-
The section 148 must be interpreted narrowly to ensure fairness and proportionality.
-
The section 395 BNSS is the correct route for complainants seeking enforcement.
Analysis
-
The Court acknowledged that Section 148 was intended to secure compensation but has been misused to deny bail.
-
It criticized the ambiguous drafting of Section 148 and its lack of procedural clarity for enforcement (e.g., freezing bank accounts).
-
The proportionality doctrine was used to test the validity of the 20% deposit rule the Court found it arbitrary and excessive in some cases.
-
It emphasized the difference between corporate and individual liability, holding that vicarious liability cannot be used to compel employees or signatories to deposit.
-
The judgment seeks to protect weaker sections who issue cheques under emergency financial distress and may not afford large deposits.
-
Reiterated that appeals must not be delayed indefinitely on procedural grounds, especially in bailable offences like Section 138 NI Act.