TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Validity of Cheque as Debt Acknowledgment, Extends Limitation Period for Debt Enforcement.</h1> <h3>Vijay Ganesh Gondhlekar Versus Indranil Jairaj Damale</h3> Vijay Ganesh Gondhlekar Versus Indranil Jairaj Damale - TMI Issues involved: Application u/s 482 seeking to quash order confirming Magistrate's order in a case u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act based on limitation of debt recovery.Summary:The applicant, an accused in a case u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, sought discharge on the ground of limitation for debt recovery. The loan was advanced in 1995, and the cheque issued in 1999 was dishonored, leading to the complaint in 1999. The applicant argued that the debt was time-barred, but the court disagreed. The court noted that acknowledgments made by the accused, including renewals and endorsements on documents, extended the debt repayment period. The court cited legal provisions stating that a signed acknowledgment before the limitation period expiry starts a fresh limitation period. The court also highlighted that a cheque itself can be an acknowledgment under the Limitation Act. The court referenced a case to support the view that revalidation of a cheque by the drawer constitutes a fresh promise, reviving the debt. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding no merit in the limitation argument.In conclusion, the court held that the acknowledgments made by the accused, including renewals and endorsements, extended the debt repayment period, making the debt legally recoverable even under civil law. The court emphasized that a cheque can serve as an acknowledgment under the Limitation Act and that revalidating a cheque constitutes a fresh promise, reviving the debt. Therefore, the court dismissed the application, finding that the debt was not time-barred and could be legally enforced.
TaxTMI 