2006 (11) TMI 709 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act was time-barred.
2. Determination of the starting point for the limitation period for filing a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act was time-barred.

The respondent filed a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act against M/s. Niket Enterprises and its proprietor for dishonour of cheques. The learned MM dismissed the complaint as time-barred, concluding that the cause of action arose on 15.12.1996, and the complaint should have been filed by 15.1.1997. However, it was filed on 16.1.1997. The learned ASJ reversed this decision, holding that 15.1.1997 was a holiday, and thus, the complaint filed on 16.1.1997 was within the period of limitation u/s 4 of the Limitation Act. The High Court, however, upheld the MM's decision, stating that the complaint was indeed time-barred as it was filed beyond the prescribed period.

Issue 2: Determination of the starting point for the limitation period for filing a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act.

The High Court examined whether the 15-day period for the drawer to make payment should start from the date the notice is deemed served or from the date the complainant receives the acknowledgment. The Court referred to Section 138 of the NI Act and relevant case law, including the Supreme Court judgments in SIL Import USA v. Exim Aides Silk Products and K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan. It was held that the 15-day period starts from the date the notice is received by the drawer or deemed served if returned unclaimed. In this case, the period started from 28.11.1996/29.11.1996, making the last date for filing the complaint 13/14.1.1997. Since the complaint was filed on 16.1.1997, it was beyond the limitation period, and the Court dismissed the complaint as time-barred.