TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The petitioner argued that the complaint was filed prematurely, violating the mandatory 15-day waiting period stipulated under Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The statutory notice was issued on 30.04.2013, received by the petitioner on 03.05.2013, and the complaint was filed on 08.05.2013, with cognizance taken on 09.05.2013. The petitioner contended that the complaint should be quashed as it was filed before the cause of action arose, and there was no specific averment in the complaint that the petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of receiving the notice.
The respondent countered that the complaint was already at the stage of examining defense witnesses and should not be quashed. They argued that if the drawer denies liability and refuses to pay, the payee need not wait for the 15-day period to lapse before filing a complaint. The respondent cited the judgment in Sagaya Arokiya Raj Vs. Ganesh Kumar, which supports the view that the complaint can be filed immediately after the drawer denies liability.
The court acknowledged that the legislative intent of Section 138 is to provide a strong remedy to deter dishonor of cheques, ensuring reliability in commercial transactions. The provision mandates a 15-day period for the drawer to make payment upon receiving notice, and failure to do so constitutes the offence. The court noted that the words "fails to make the payment" imply that the drawer must be given the full 15 days to comply, regardless of any earlier denial of liability.
Issue 2: Effect of Denial of Liability by the DrawerThe court examined whether a drawer's denial of liability in their reply notice affects the cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138. The petitioner cited several judgments where complaints filed within the 15-day period were deemed premature. However, the court distinguished these cases, noting that they did not involve a scenario where the drawer denied liability. The court referred to the judgment in V.Suresh Kumar Vs. C.sreekrishnan, which held that the cause of action arises only after the 15-day period, even if the drawer denies liability.
The court observed conflicting views in judgments regarding whether the cause of action arises immediately upon denial of liability or only after the 15-day period. The court highlighted the need to resolve this conflict and emphasized that penal statutes require strict interpretation. The court questioned what would happen if a drawer initially denies liability but later decides to make payment within the 15-day period.
Conclusion:In light of the conflicting judgments and the importance of resolving the legal question, the court deemed it necessary to refer the matter to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. The court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge to consider constituting a Bench to hear and resolve the issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
