2024 (4) TMI 1212 - SCH - Indian Laws

SC Rules Cheque Date Change Impermissible; Upholds Original Date for Compliance with Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

MUNISH KUMAR GUPTA Versus M/s MITTAL TRADING COMPANY

The SC ruled that the amendment to change the date of the cheque from 22.07.2010 to 22.07.2012 was not permissible. The Court emphasized that the original ... Dishonour of Cheque - seeking amendment of the date of the cheque from 22.07.2010 to 22.07.2012 - HELD THAT:- The learned Magistrate considering the application has rightly concluded that even if the amendment/ correction is permitted in the complaint to indicate the date as 22.07.2012, the evidence supporting the case of the appellant contains the year as 2010, and as such, the amendment/ correction would not be justified. As against such conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate, the High Court based on the discussion and applying the principles laid down in the various judgments cited therein by the learned counsel, allowed the said application to carry out necessary corrections/ amendment. However, while ultimately arriving at the conclusion as to whether the amendment is required to be permitted, the High Court had merely arrived at the conclusion that if such amendment is not permitted, it would prove fatal to the case of the complainant and as indicated, the respondent/complainant was only seeking the correction of the year. The High Court has, in fact, lost sight of the fact that the documents also contain the said date and the evidence recorded is also to the same effect. In a matter of the present nature, where the date is a relevant aspect based on which the entire aspect relating to the issue of notice within the time frame as provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and also as to whether as on the date there was sufficient balance in the account of the issuer of the cheque would be the question, the amendment, as sought for, in the present circumstance, was not justified. Conclusion - Amendment of the date of the cheque is not allowed. Amendments to legal documents must be justified by necessity and consistency with evidence. The judgment and order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is set aside - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe legal judgment addresses the following core issues:Whether the amendment of the complaint to correct the date of the cheque from 22.07.2010 to 22.07.2012 is permissible under the circumstances.Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the amendment, considering the evidence and documents already on record.What impact does the date of the cheque have on the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Rs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Amendment of the ComplaintRelevant legal framework and precedents: The amendment was sought under the procedural rules governing the correction of typographical errors in legal documents. The principles of allowing amendments typically hinge on whether such amendments are necessary to determine the real questions in controversy and whether they cause prejudice to the opposing party.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Supreme Court noted that the date of the cheque was consistently recorded as 22.07.2010 in the legal notice, complaint, and evidence. The Magistrate had concluded that the amendment would not be justified as the evidence supported the original date.Key evidence and findings: The evidence included the legal notice and the recorded testimony, both of which consistently mentioned the date as 22.07.2010.Application of law to facts: The Supreme Court applied the principles of amendment to the facts, emphasizing the importance of the date in determining the validity of the notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act.Treatment of competing arguments: The High Court had allowed the amendment, reasoning that not permitting it would be detrimental to the complainant's case. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the consistency of the date in all documents and evidence.Conclusions: The amendment was not justified as it would alter a fundamental aspect of the complaint that was consistently recorded throughout the proceedings.Issue 2: Justification of the High Court's DecisionRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court referred to established principles regarding the amendment of pleadings and the role of appellate courts in reviewing such decisions.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overlooked the consistency of the date across all documents and evidence, and its reasoning that the amendment was necessary to avoid fatality to the complainant's case was flawed.Key evidence and findings: The consistent mention of the date as 22.07.2010 in all relevant documents and the lack of justification for changing it.Application of law to facts: The Supreme Court applied the principles of amendment and appellate review, concluding that the High Court's decision was unjustified.Treatment of competing arguments: The Supreme Court considered the High Court's rationale but found it inadequate in light of the consistent documentary evidence.Conclusions: The High Court's decision to allow the amendment was set aside as it was not supported by the facts and evidence.Issue 3: Impact of the Date on ProceedingsRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires that a notice demanding payment be issued within a specific timeframe from the date of the cheque.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The date of the cheque is crucial in determining compliance with statutory requirements for notice and the sufficiency of funds in the issuer's account.Key evidence and findings: The original date of 22.07.2010 was consistently used in all proceedings, affecting the statutory notice period and the factual matrix of the case.Application of law to facts: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the original date in maintaining the integrity of the legal process and ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.Treatment of competing arguments: The potential for a typographical error was considered but ultimately dismissed due to the consistent use of the original date in all proceedings.Conclusions: The original date of the cheque was upheld as it was integral to the statutory and factual framework of the case.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The amendment, as sought for, in the present circumstance, was not justified.'Core principles established: Amendments to legal documents must be justified by necessity and consistency with evidence; appellate courts must carefully review lower court decisions allowing such amendments.Final determinations on each issue: The amendment was not permissible; the High Court's decision was unjustified and set aside; the original date of the cheque was upheld as critical to the proceedings.