9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Branch, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. It is stated in the complaint that when in April, 2019 i.e. after approximately three years, respondent No.2 approached petitioner for repayment of loan amount, petitioner assured that he will return the entire amount and in order to discharge his part liability, issued a cheque bearing No.032753, dated 01.05.2019, amounting to Rs. 10 Lacs, drawn on ICICI Bank, C Block, Janakpuri Branch, New Delhi, which was dishonored on presentation in the bank with the remarks "funds insufficient" and was returned vide bank advice memo dated 22.05.2019. It is the case of complainant that when he informed petitioner about dishonour of the cheque, he paid no heed to his complaint and thereafter, the complainant served a legal demand notice dated 31.05.2019 upon him and despite service of demand notice through speed post as well as approved courier on 03.06.2019, when petitioner failed to make the payment, complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was instituted against the petitioner on 20.07.2019 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and vide impugned order dated 26.09.2019 summons were directed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the period of six months will be reckoned from the next day i.e. from 1-1-2006; meaning thereby that according to the British calendar, the period of six months will expire at the end of the 30th day of June, 2006. Since the cheque was presented on 30-6-2006, we are of the view that it was presented within the period prescribed." 6. In addition, learned counsel for petitioner also relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, (1999) 4 SCC 567 in support of his case. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant opposed the present petition while submitting that the impugned order is well merited and petitioner has been rightly summoned in the complaint in question and, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. However, he submitted that the decision in Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi (Supra), has been rightly relied upon by counsel for petitioner as in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the British Calender while computing the period prescribed under Section 138 of the NI Act. 8. Learned counsel for second respondent further relied upon decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m created within which an act may be done and a time limited for the doing of an act. The rule is well established that where a particular time is given from a certain date within which an act is to be done, the day on that date is to be excluded. (See Goldsmiths' Co. v. West Metropolitan Rly. Co. [(1904) 1 KB 1, 5 : 72 LJKB 931 : 89 LT 428] , KB at p. 5.) This rule was followed in Cartwright v. MacCormack [(1963) 1 All ER 11, 13 : (1963) 1 WLR 18] : All ER at p. 13, where the expression 'fifteen days from the date of commencement of the policy' in a cover note issued by an insurance company was construed as excluding the first date and the cover note to commence at midnight of that day, and also in Marren v. Dawson Bentley & Co. Ltd. [(1961) 2 QB 135 : (1961) 2 All ER 270], a case for compensation for injuries received in the course of employment, where for purposes of computing the period of limitation the date of the accident, being the date of the cause of action, was excluded. (See also Stewart v. Chapman [(1951) 2 KB 792 : (1951) 2 All ER 613] and North, Re, ex p Hasluck [(1895) 2 QB 264 : 64 LJQB 694] .) Thus, as a general rule the effect of defining a period from such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port, as admitted by the petitioner, the petitioner received the demand notice via speed post on 03.06.2019. Therefore, the notice period of 15 days for making payment of the cheque amount lapsed on 18.06.2019. The cause of action for filing of the complaint accrued to the complainant on 19.06.2019. As provided under Section 12 of the Limitation Act and held in the judgment in 'M/S Saketh India Ltd. (Supra), the period of one month for filing complaint will be reckoned from the day immediately following the day on which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice by drawer, expires. As such, the day 19.06.2019 is to be excluded for counting the period of one month. The complaint was filed on 20.07.2019 within one month from the date of accrual of cause of action on 20.06.2019." 11. A full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Econ Antri Ltd. v. Rom Industries Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 769, while deciding the issue of calculation of limitation period with regard to proviso (c) to Section 138 and Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has held as under:- "42. Having considered the question of law involved in this case in proper perspective, in the light of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 sent by way of courier, as per tracking report, was received by the petitioner on 05.06.2019 and as such, the notice period of 15 days expired on 20.06.2019 and excluding the following day i.e. 21.06.2019, the complaint filed on 20.07.2019 is within limitation period of one month." 15. It is pertinent to mention here that on one hand, Revisional Court in Para-16 of the impugned order (as extracted in Para-10 of this order) has held that as per tracking report and as admitted, petitioner had received the demand notice on 03.06.2019 and on the other hand, in Para-17 the Revisional Court has observed that as per tracking report, the demand notice was received by petitioner on 05.06.2019 and so, the complaint is filed within the limitation period. Revisional Court has erroneously taken into consideration two different dates for service of demand notice while computing the limitation period. It is an admitted fact that the demand notice was served upon petitioner on 03.06.2019 and so, Revisional Court was not required to take into consideration the tracking report showing service of demand notice on 05.06.2019 to justify that the complaint was filed within the limitation period. 16. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
