A complaint under s.138 NI Act was held not maintainable because the statutory demand notice was issued about seven months after dishonour, beyond the 30-day mandate in s.138(b), so no valid cause of action arose. Independently, the complaint was treated as time-barred since cognizance of a delayed complaint under s.142(b) requires an application showing sufficient cause and an order condoning delay, which were absent, rendering cognizance illegal; the complaint was therefore liable to rejection. The defence that the cheque was a "security cheque" raised disputed facts and, in any event, a security cheque can mature into enforceable liability. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld as the payee's bank branch fell within jurisdiction. Petition allowed. - HC
A complaint under s.138 NI Act was held not maintainable because the statutory demand notice was issued about seven months after dishonour, beyond the 30-day mandate in s.138(b), so no valid cause of action arose. Independently, the complaint was treated as time-barred since cognizance of a delayed complaint under s.142(b) requires an application showing sufficient cause and an order condoning delay, which were absent, rendering cognizance illegal; the complaint was therefore liable to rejection. The defence that the cheque was a "security cheque" raised disputed facts and, in any event, a security cheque can mature into enforceable liability. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld as the payee's bank branch fell within jurisdiction. Petition allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
