LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Madhu Mittal (Director)     22 September 2023

Interlocutory/final/intermediate -order of trial court to pay 500 as compensation/interest after dep

A case u/s 138 was lodged under s 138 N I Act in January 2018 for Amount of Rs.26888/- , on 24.09.2019  Accused got bail from the Trial Court. After manipulating Court time on a number of hearing dates on 21.09.2022 accused deposited into Trial Court a Demand Draft of Rs. 30000/-  fvg Complainant which was got by Complainant on same date and Accused also put an application to dispose of case in the light of SC decision M/S Meters And Instruments ... vs Kanchan Mehta decided on 5 October, 2017 ,   Complainant filed written reply on  the next hearing date 19.10.2022 opposing and stating this SC citation was overruled by 5 Judges bench of SC in Re: Speedy trial in 2021 along with a request to got given compensation as  interest @ 18 % p.a. for about 4 years ( i.e. date of cheque Janwary 2018 to Sept 2022 – date of payment) u/s 80 N I Act citing a number of decisions supporting this view.

But Hon’ble Trial court passed order on 23.01.2023 for Rs. 500/- as compensation/interest for delay payment when deposited to be given to Complainant. Complainant refused to take this 500/-  and did not compromise. So next date of hearing is given and case u/s 138 N I Act still continue in Trial Court.

Against this impugned order of Hon’ble Trial court dated on 23.01.2023 for Rs. 500/- as compensation/interest for delay payment, Complainant filed a revision u/s 397 and 399 to Session Court raising the same grounds as before trial Court of Inadequate Compensation. Now on last hearing yesterday i.e. 19.09.2023,  Hon’ble Session Court /Revision Court told verbally to Complainant that Revision is not maintainable as above Order dated 23.01.2023 of Trial court is the Interlocutory Order and  due to bar u/s 397(2), revision will be dismissed on next date.

Please guide whether above Order is Interlocutory Order or Intermediate Order or Final Order as the substantial right of compensation was decided by Trial Court and if it was not challenged, it would have become final as far as compensation is concerned against all established Rules of compensation u/s S 30, 80, 82 C and 117 of N I Act as well as S 357 crpc. The hon’ble Trial Court will not decide Compensation again as it has been already decided by its order 23.01.2023 and it will decide after complete trial only on Imprisonment Sentence, which is not going to be more than till rising of court as compensation /interest has already been decided.

So if in your opinion also Revision can not be maintained, it is ok, and what would have been done by Complainant. But if in your opinion it is only Intermediate Order or Final order as far as compensation is concerned, and Revision is maintainable, how to satisfy the Revision Court /Session Court not to dismiss the revision, if there is any citation please tell me about that also.

Any other remedy


 2 Replies

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     22 September 2023

There are about 394 different kinds of Interlocutory application, but finding out the real orientation of the interlocutory order of the trial court  is a difficult task. In a suit or proceedings a court may passed different Orders which can be  final, preliminary, intermeditary or interlocutory. An order to be a judgment the adverse affect on the party must be direct and immediate rather than indirect and remote..In other words. an order of the court may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent prejudice one party or the other cannot be treated as a judgment, or else the appellate court will be flooded with appeals from all kinds of orders passed by the trial court. I am of the view that in your case it is a payment of interest at 18% and the trial court passed an order for Rs.500/-, and undoubtedly a judgment, and not interlocutory or intermediary. 

Real Soul.... (LEGAL)     22 September 2023

That is strange court passing a judgment without giving finding on the status of case, it was supposed to be clear unambiguous order. It is equally strange that the accused  is preferring revision just for 500; I think revision was maintainable and now may be he would be contemplating for appeal

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register