9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involves quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the legality of the debt and the validity of a cheque issued for a time-barred debt. Summary: The petitioner sought to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt as the debt was time-barred. The respondent contended that by issuing the cheque, the petitioner had entered into a valid agreement to pay the debt barred by limitation. The Court considered the submissions and examined the legal aspects of the case. The explanation under Section 138 defines "debt or other liability" as a legally enforceable debt. The complaint indicated that the debt was time-barred, but the accused had acknowledged the debt in writing on a later date. Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act states that a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation is a valid contract, providing a fresh cause of action. Referring to a similar case, the Court held that issuing a cheque acknowledges liability, even if the debt is time-barred. The proceedings against the accused were not quashed, as the validity of the cheque and the consent of the promisor needed to be determined by the trial court. The petition was dismissed, leaving the decision to the trial court to ascertain the voluntary nature of the cheque issuance post-limitation period.
|
