Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (8) TMI 597 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Validity of the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malda.
3. Limitation period for filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No.177C/2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Malda. The petitioner argued that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period as prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The demand notice was received by the petitioner on 07.01.2013, and the complaint should have been filed by 22.02.2013. However, it was filed on 26.03.2013 without an application for condonation of delay.

Issue 2: Validity of the Order Dated 29.06.2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malda
The Additional Sessions Judge, Malda, dismissed the revisional application filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 05.01.2018 by the Judicial Magistrate, Malda. The petitioner contended that the orders were arbitrary and unreasonable. The court held that the complaint was barred by limitation and the orders taking cognizance were bad in law. Thus, the orders dated 29.06.2019 and 05.01.2018 were set aside.

Issue 3: Limitation Period for Filing the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The court analyzed the timeline of events:
- Cheques presented on 07.12.2012 and returned on 08.12.2012 due to insufficient funds.
- Demand notice issued on 03.01.2013 and received by the petitioner on 07.01.2013.
- Complaint filed on 26.03.2013 without condonation of delay.

The court referred to judgments in Subodh S. Salaskar vs. Jayprakash M. Shah and M/s Saketh India Limited vs. M/s. India Securities Limited, emphasizing that the complaint was barred by limitation. The court concluded that the complaint should have been filed within one month from the date the cause of action arose, which was not done in this case.

Conclusion:
The revisional application was allowed, and the orders dated 29.06.2019 and 05.01.2018 were set aside. The complaint was deemed barred by limitation, and the proceedings were quashed. The opposite party was given liberty to avail the provision under Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act within one month from the date of the order.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates