Sunil Kumar v. Indusind Bank Ltd
!
" #$%" %&'(')*
+,)'-.,/#0 %$'$')%0 1( )2,(')2 #)34$2 %(5)2%)$( * 6 4 +1.
+ 4
1.
+ 47 0#- 88 8
!"# $ $
&& %
'
)& )& #)## $
(
%
,
* *
&& %
- $
)! )- #)#) (%
.
/ $
-0"
'
/ -""-
%
1
1
$
-2 )0 #)#-
#
*
(
$34005&24#)## -!5
!"# $ $
(
(
- 1
(
%
(
%
(
7
*
(
8 3
-5 + $
#/2#0+
0#9:,1( +#;%2 #9#-#-
+<<8
89( $
#=%)20# 1( #)2 4#-
0'/')#- <<
$ $
'-#3.#$#0'#1( +$#$%"#0;#)# #)2#)$:%0
80'/')#-
!
(
7 4-
(
-
(*
(
-0"
'
/ -""-
1
3 !2 ))):4
3 - )))):4 )2 )& #)-"
.
/ $
,
$;4-
*
<7 $4-0
-0"
- %
(
( . ,
-2 )0 #)#-
4
$34005&24#)#)
7
7 4-
( 4 =
! " #$ $ % " # $ % &' ()$*+*+!
( ),)) - ./ '
0 '1 2
#33 4 , #+ " 3 4$ % '1 2 #333 4,#+ " #$ $ 5.
'10 -.
' '#*+ 2 &' ' .#*+ &'6 - ! 2 6' 64$4#+ 0' 0' '2/ ! 3 #
.. 6 -! 6 $+ 8
' '3 #
0' 2 2/ ' 7 .7! 7
#4 *
. ./ ''
'' 2' 2- 2- 5 ', , # - 28' ' '
'
' '' .2/' .' 0 9 6 -! :& /;< "
(
%
$
%
&
89( $ /
+
> ?
*
#/2#0 ( > ?
+
(
"5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of N.I. Act is to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our
< attention to the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 and submitted that in cases arising under Section 138, N.I. Act where the parties are compromising the matter this Court has issued the guidelines as to the levy of costs depending upon stage of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has 7 of 10 submitted that in the special facts and circumstances of the case, the Court can waive the costs to be levied. As discussed earlier, in the present case, the appellant, accused was acquitted by the Trial Court inter alia on the ground that the respondent had not established that there was a legally enforceable debt. Since the appellant was convicted only in the High Court, the appellant had substantial ground to raise in the criminal appeal filed before this Court.
Because of the reversal of the acquittal by the High Court and the conviction recorded only by the High Court, the appellant had opportunity of negotiating for settlement in this Court after filing the appeal. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a case where cost is to be imposed, as per the guidelines laid down by this Court as per the judgment reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 (supra)."
(
89( 7 $
%
$ $
'-#3.#$#0'# > ?
=& ' . .
./ ' . >
' ' ..'
8
?2.
@ 2 / 2
:#;$ 44* ' 0 .' ' .
' 0 ' . ''. . '
8
@ 2?' :.
; /20 >>>%%>>>%%>>> & ' . - ' ' . .:; 2/ 0/ ' .
* # #, '. 00 02/?2&.> -7? ':.
;-. 0.' '.'
' 0 2/ ?2 &.> @ 2? ' :.
;
.
. ' . ' .2
' #*+ &' &'' / . 8
.2/ 20 ' . '#*+ &' . '1 ':;
'' .
@.
=.
10.
/
(
7
/
(
%
( - 1
%
7
( (
--
*
(
-# ,
(
$34005&24#)##
)! )- #)#)
-2 )0 #)#-
1
%
(
+%5$%/9%0
7 1.
+ 4 ; * : @
; 3 '