Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applied to a complaint under Section 138 where the cheque was dishonoured before 01.09.2018 but the statutory period for payment after notice expired after the amendment came into force.
Analysis: The Court held that the ratio in the decision holding Section 143-A to be prospective had to be applied in the light of when the offence under Section 138 is completed. It distinguished between dishonour of the cheque and completion of the offence, noting that the offence under Section 138 is not complete on dishonour alone but only after the drawer fails to pay within fifteen days of receipt of notice under the proviso. On the admitted facts, notice was received on 20.08.2018, the fifteen-day period expired on 04.09.2018, and the amended provision came into force on 01.09.2018. The Court therefore concluded that the offence was committed after the amendment became operative.
Conclusion: Section 143-A was applicable to the complaint, and the orders directing payment of interim compensation did not call for interference.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the orders of the courts below failed, and the petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 143-A, the relevant date is when the offence under Section 138 is completed on expiry of the statutory period after notice, not the date of mere dishonour of the cheque.