https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395308 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not held barred by limitation merely because no separate application for condonation of delay was filed under Section 142. The Court noted that the complaint was filed after the amendment introducing the proviso to Section 142(b), which allows cognizance beyond the prescribed period where sufficient cause for delay is shown. Since the complaint itself explained the delay and was supported by medical material, a separate application under the Limitation Act was not mandatory. The earlier precedent cited by the applicant was distinguished as relating to the pre-amendment position. The limitation objection was rejected and the complaint was held maintainable. en-us Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 May 2020 10:31:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395308 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not held barred by limitation merely because no separate application for condonation of delay was filed under Section 142. The Court noted that the complaint was filed after the amendment introducing the proviso to Section 142(b), which allows cognizance beyond the prescribed period where sufficient cause for delay is shown. Since the complaint itself explained the delay and was supported by medical material, a separate application under the Limitation Act was not mandatory. The earlier precedent cited by the applicant was distinguished as relating to the pre-amendment position. The limitation objection was rejected and the complaint was held maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395308