Exclusion of Dishonoured Cheque Date in Notice Period Calculation

The Supreme Court ruled in the case that the date of receiving information about the dishonoured cheque should be excluded when calculating the statutory notice period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the petitioner's complaint was reinstated, overturning the previous order. The Trial Court was instructed to expedite the proceedings due to the significant delay since the cheque's dishonour in 2006.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the statutory notice period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Applicability of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner challenged an order dismissing their complaint under Section 138 of the Act due to a belatedly issued statutory notice. The Revisional Court allowed the respondent's revision petition, citing the notice was issued on the 31st day after receiving information about the dishonoured cheque. The petitioner argued that the date of receipt should be excluded based on the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Revisional Court relied on Shiv Kumar vs. Natarajan, stating the notice was beyond the prescribed period.

Issue 2: The petitioner contended that the Revisional Court erred in relying on Shiv Kumar (supra) as it was a two-judge decision, whereas a three-judge bench in Econ Antri Limited vs. Rom Industries Limited clarified that the date of receipt should be excluded. The Supreme Court in Econ Antri Limited held that the words "from" and "of" in Section 138 have the same meaning, i.e., "after," and the date of the cause of action must be excluded for calculating the limitation period under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Econ Antri Limited established that the date of receiving information about the dishonoured cheque should be excluded when computing the statutory notice period under Section 138. Therefore, the petitioner's complaint was reinstated, and the impugned order was set aside. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the proceedings due to the considerable time that had elapsed since the cheque's dishonour in 2006.

---