https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155544 The dominant issue was whether a complaint under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was barred by limitation, i.e., not filed within one month from the date the cause of action arose under proviso (c). The SC held that the computation must follow the settled rule in s. 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and s. 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, requiring exclusion of the first day and inclusion of the last. Accordingly, the one-month period runs from the day immediately after expiry of the 15-day notice period, and the day on which the cause of action arises is excluded. As the complaint filed on the last day so computed was within time, the appeals were dismissed. en-us Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 23:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155544 The dominant issue was whether a complaint under s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was barred by limitation, i.e., not filed within one month from the date the cause of action arose under proviso (c). The SC held that the computation must follow the settled rule in s. 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and s. 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, requiring exclusion of the first day and inclusion of the last. Accordingly, the one-month period runs from the day immediately after expiry of the 15-day notice period, and the day on which the cause of action arises is excluded. As the complaint filed on the last day so computed was within time, the appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155544