Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Computing one-month period under Section 142(b) Negotiable Instruments Act requires excluding first day cause of action arose</h1> <h3>Econ Antri Ltd. Versus Rom Industries Ltd. And Another</h3> The SC held that when computing the one-month period under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act for filing complaints, the first day on which ... Interpretation of Section 138 and Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Calculation of Period of one month in Negotiable Instrument Act - Exclusion of first day - Whether for calculating the period of one month which was prescribed under Section 142(b), the period had to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose - Meaning of word 'Of' - Expressions such as ‘from such a day’ or ‘until such a day’. Held that:- While computing the period of one month as provided under Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the first day on which the cause of action had arisen had to be excluded - It was not possible to hold that the word ‘of’ occurring in Section 138(c) and 142(b) of the N.I. Act was to be interpreted differently as against the word ‘from’ occurring in Section 138(a) of the N.I. Act; and that for the purposes of Section 142(b), which prescribes that the complaint was to be filed within 30 days of the date on which the cause of action arises, the starting day on which the cause of action arises should be included for computing the period of 30 days. Days included or excluded — When a period of time running from a given day or even to another day or event was prescribed by law or fixed as contract, and the question arises whether the computation was to be made inclusively or exclusively of the first-mentioned or of the lastmentioned day, regard must be had to the context and to the purposes for which the computation had to be made - Where there was room for doubt, the enactment or instrument ought to be so construed as to effectuate and not to defeat the intention of Parliament or of the parties, as the case may be - Expressions such as ‘from such a day’ or ‘until such a day’ are equivocal, since they do not make it clear whether the inclusion or the exclusion of the day named may be intended - As a general rule, however, the effect of defining a period in such a manner was to exclude the first day and to include the last day. Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securities Ltd. [1999 (3) TMI 591 - SUPREME COURT], lays down the correct proposition of law - the purpose of calculating the period of one month, which was prescribed u/s 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the period had to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose - SIL Import USA does not lay down the correct law - Needless to say that any decision of this Court which takes a view contrary to the view taken in Saketh by this Court, do not lay down the correct law on the question involved in this reference. Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 138 and Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Applicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.3. Variance between the judgments in Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securities Ltd. and SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 138 and Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:The primary issue in this case is whether the period of one month prescribed under Section 142(b) of the NI Act should exclude the date on which the cause of action arose. Section 138(c) of the NI Act mandates that the drawer of a dishonored cheque must make payment within 15 days of receiving notice. Section 142(b) stipulates that a complaint must be filed within one month of the cause of action arising. The Court held that for calculating the period of one month under Section 142(b), the date on which the cause of action arose must be excluded. This interpretation aligns with the principle that the day from which a period is to be reckoned should be excluded, as established in English case law and previous Indian judgments.2. Applicability of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897:The Court examined whether Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which excludes the day from which the period is to be reckoned, applies to the NI Act. Although the Limitation Act is generally not applicable to the NI Act, the Court found that the same principle is incorporated in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 9 states that for excluding the first day in a series of days, the word 'from' is sufficient. The Court concluded that this principle should be applied to the NI Act, thereby excluding the first day when calculating the period for filing a complaint under Section 142(b).3. Variance between the judgments in Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securities Ltd. and SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore:The Court noted the conflicting views in Saketh and SIL Import USA. In Saketh, the Court held that the first day should be excluded in computing the time period, relying on English decisions and the principle established in Haru Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal. In contrast, SIL Import USA included the first day in the computation, leading to a different conclusion. The Court in the current case found the reasoning in Saketh more persuasive and consistent with established legal principles. Thus, it held that Saketh correctly interpreted the law, and SIL Import USA did not.Conclusion:The Court concluded that for the purpose of calculating the one-month period under Section 142(b) of the NI Act, the date on which the cause of action arose must be excluded. This interpretation aligns with the principles in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the established legal rule of excluding the first day in a series of days. Consequently, the judgment in Saketh was upheld as laying down the correct law, while SIL Import USA was found to be incorrect. The reference was answered accordingly, confirming the exclusion of the first day in the computation of the limitation period under the NI Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found