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 - 2022 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (5) TMI 197 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Determination of the date when the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is committed.
3. Jurisdictional and procedural aspects related to the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioners challenged the orders directing them to pay interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which came into effect on 01.09.2018. The petitioners argued that since the cheque was dishonoured on 13.08.2018, before the amendment came into force, Section 143-A should not apply. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in *G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana*, which held that Section 143-A is prospective and applies only to offences committed after its introduction. The Court, however, determined that the offence under Section 138 was committed after the amendment came into force, making Section 143-A applicable.

2. Determination of the Date When the Offence under Section 138 is Committed:
The core issue was whether the offence under Section 138 is committed on the date the cheque is dishonoured or upon the completion of all conditions in the proviso to Section 138. The petitioners cited *Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra*, where the Supreme Court stated that the offence is committed when the cheque is dishonoured. However, the Court distinguished this from the decision in *Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey*, which clarified that the offence is committed only after the 15-day period post-notice expires without payment. The Court concluded that the offence in this case was committed on 04.09.2018, after the amendment came into force.

3. Jurisdictional and Procedural Aspects:
The petitioners argued that the Courts below erred in applying Section 143-A based on the date of cheque dishonour. The Court reviewed the jurisdictional aspect, emphasizing that the observations in *Dashrath Rupsing Rathod* were made in the context of determining the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The Court held that the offence under Section 138 is complete only when all conditions in the proviso are met, aligning with the decision in *Yogendra Pratap Singh*. Thus, the procedural requirements for taking cognizance of the offence were satisfied only after the 15-day notice period expired.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the orders of the lower Courts, affirming that the offence under Section 138 was committed after the amendment to the Negotiable Instruments Act came into force. Consequently, Section 143-A was applicable, and the interim compensation order was valid. The petition was dismissed, and the application for stay was disposed of accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates