9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the dates of presentation and dishonour were not specifically pleaded, it is clear from the averments made in the plaint that the cheques were presented within the period of two months since they became payable - thus notwithstanding that the issue of cheques was as early as in 2001, the presentation made in 2007 in accordance with proviso (a) to Section 138 cannot be said to offend Section 84 (2) of NI Act. Review petition partly allowed. - RP.No.13 OF 2020 IN RFA. 819/2010 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2020 - MR. Justice A. Hariprasad And Mr. Justice T.V. Anilkumar For the Petitioners : Adv. Sri. V. Sethunath For the Respondent : Adv. Sri. Varghese C. Kuriakose, Adv. Sri. V. V. Shaji, Adv. Shri. Susanth Shaji ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the error occurred is capable of upsetting our conclusion on the relevance and applicability of Article 35 of the Act, 1963, which we arrived at after detailed discussion and analysis of the relevant provisions of the Act, 1963 and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act'). We also notice that judgment in Malathy's case was recalled solely on factual grounds. 4. The counsel for the revision petitioners contended, relying on Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay South, Bombay v. Messrs. Ogale Glass Workds Ltd., Ogale Wadi ( AIR 1954 SC 429) and Kedar Nath Mitra v. Dinabandhu Saha (1915 ILR (Calcutta) 1043) , that a cheque which is dishonoured is a mere waste paper rendering the instrument itself ir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alidly instituted within time. He also contended that all the five blank cheques issued were materially altered with such dates convenient to the respondent so as to take the suit out of the bar of limitation. 6. This argument is also incapable of acceptance since there is a concluded finding on evidence that the cheques were postdated by the drawer himself and no material alterations were ever made by the respondent. There is no valid ground or scope for reconsidering this question in this review petition. It is trite law that a review is not an appeal in disguise. 7. It is true that the cheques were presented to the Bank for encashment after passage of hardly seven years, since the date of delivery. As per Section 84(2) of the NI Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, with effect from 1.4.1989, sufficient indication is made in proviso(a) to Section 138, as to the clear period within which a cheque ought to be presented for encashment. The proviso (a) to Section 138 reads as follows; (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; The above period of six months was later scaled down to three months with effect from 1.4.2012 by virtue of a notification issued by the Central Government. As per the aforesaid proviso, the stipulated period for presentation is to commence only from the date on which the cheque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing on its face and the date of issue are one and the same. 10. In this case, the cheques were postdated to 10.12.2017. They became payable only from the dates endorsed therein. Even though the dates of presentation and dishonour were not specifically pleaded, it is clear from the averments made in the plaint that the cheques were presented within the period of two months since they became payable. Thus notwithstanding that the issue of cheques was as early as in 2001, the presentation made in 2007 in accordance with proviso (a) to Section 138 cannot be said to offend Section 84 (2) of NI Act. Thus, the second ground for review also fails. 11. We have already made it clear that the findings in the judgment under review arriv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
