https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398989 Article 35 of the Limitation Act was held to govern a suit on dishonoured cheques, and the mistaken reference to a recalled decision was treated as an error apparent without upsetting the substantive limitation reasoning. On postdated cheques, Section 84 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was read harmoniously with proviso (a) to Section 138, so the relevant time for presentation ran from the date written on the cheque, not the date of delivery. On the facts, the cheques were presented within the permissible period after they became payable, no material alteration was proved, and the challenge to maintainability failed. 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 Article 35 of the Limitation Act was held to govern a suit on dishonoured cheques, and the mistaken reference to a recalled decision was treated as an error apparent without upsetting the substantive limitation reasoning. On postdated cheques, Section 84 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was read harmoniously with proviso (a) to Section 138, so the relevant time for presentation ran from the date written on the cheque, not the date of delivery. On the facts, the cheques were presented within the permissible period after they became payable, no material alteration was proved, and the challenge to maintainability failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398989