https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398989 The High Court confirmed the decree for money in favor of the respondent, rejecting the appellants' plea that the suit was barred by limitation. It held that the suit on a dishonored cheque falls under Article 35 of the Limitation Act, not Article 19 as contended. The Court clarified the time period for presenting a dishonored cheque, emphasizing the importance of the date of issue in determining the presentation period. Despite an error in following a recalled judgment, the Court upheld the judgment's findings based on facts and law, partly allowing the review petition for correction. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:27:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398989 The High Court confirmed the decree for money in favor of the respondent, rejecting the appellants' plea that the suit was barred by limitation. It held that the suit on a dishonored cheque falls under Article 35 of the Limitation Act, not Article 19 as contended. The Court clarified the time period for presenting a dishonored cheque, emphasizing the importance of the date of issue in determining the presentation period. Despite an error in following a recalled judgment, the Court upheld the judgment's findings based on facts and law, partly allowing the review petition for correction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398989