https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274606 A settlement letter that merely sought time for payment did not novate the cheque liability or extinguish the original debt, so prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not barred. The Madras HC also held that a drawer's denial of liability in the reply notice does not advance the cause of action, because the statutory trigger is failure to pay within fifteen days of receipt of notice under the proviso to section 138. The complaint period under section 142(b) runs from that expiry date, and the specific statutory scheme prevails over section 469(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The quash petition was rejected and the complaint was allowed to proceed. en-us Tue, 05 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:58:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274606 A settlement letter that merely sought time for payment did not novate the cheque liability or extinguish the original debt, so prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not barred. The Madras HC also held that a drawer's denial of liability in the reply notice does not advance the cause of action, because the statutory trigger is failure to pay within fifteen days of receipt of notice under the proviso to section 138. The complaint period under section 142(b) runs from that expiry date, and the specific statutory scheme prevails over section 469(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The quash petition was rejected and the complaint was allowed to proceed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274606