VEERENDRA Vs. SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) As regards the first question, the same is answered in paragraph 16 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 4 MPLJ 257 AFR CRR No.2404 of 2015 reported in . From the last sentence of paragraph 16, it is amply clear that the directions given by the Supreme Court (as noted in paragraph 15), should be given effect prospectively.

(3.) As per the guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court, compounding of such cases can be allowed at different stages of the proceedings - pending before the Trial Court or Appellate Court or for that matter Revisional Court, as the case may be. Depending on the stage during which the compounding application is made, the amount towards compounding cost has been specified. That, however, can be and ought to be levied on case to case basis. Thus, the fact that the cheque is issued prior to 3rd May, 2010 - on which date the Supreme Court formulated the guidelines, will make no difference. Accordingly, the first question formulated by the learned Single Judge does not require any further elaboration and is answered accordingly.