9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] . In the said case, a cheque issued in the year 2003 in respect of the loan advanced in 1999, was held not be legally enforceable. It was held The acknowledgment of the alleged amount in 2003 was not valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and consequently, it was not a legally enforceable debt. On the same analogy, it is held that the cheque issued in 2018 in respect of the loan advanced in the year 2011, cannot be said to be a valid acknowledgment and thus, the complaint filed in respect of the dishonour of the said cheque is not maintainable. As a consequence, the summoning order passed in the said complaint cannot be sustained. The present petition is allowed. - HARNARES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the averments made in the complaint that the said loan had been taken by the petitioner for a period of seven years, are nothing, but to make out a case so as to bring the case within the period of limitation. While relying upon the judgment of this Court in Manjit Kaur Vs. Vanita, 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 574, Madras High Court in K. Kumaravel Vs. R.P. Rathinam, 2011(3) RCR (Crl.) 574 and Bombay High Court in Ashwni Satish Bhat (Mrs.) Vs. Jeevan Divakar Lolienkar, 2000(1) RCR (Crl.) 829, it is contended that the limitation for recovery of the alleged date was three years from the date of issue thereof. It is further contended that at no point of time before the expiry of the said period of limitation, had there been any acknow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecover the debt. Thus, there being no acknowledgement by or on behalf of the accused, it cannot be said that the complaint filed in respect of the said debt was maintainable. Similar issue was considered by this Court in Manjit Kaur s case (supra). In the said case, a cheque issued in the year 2003 in respect of the loan advanced in 1999, was held not be legally enforceable. It was held as under:- 9. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the cheque was issued on 28.6.2003. On reckoning, it works out that the loan was advanced somewhere in June, 1999. A meticulous perusal of the evidence on record would reveal that the appellant has not produced any document or other evidence revealing that the accused-respondent had acknowledg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
