https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308024 The court determined that the date of the initial presentation of the complaint to the Magistrate is crucial for filing within the limitation period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It resolved a conflict between two High Court decisions, emphasizing that the date of initial presentation is significant. The court clarified that the Magistrate does not have the power to return a complaint for rectification of defects once filed. It held that re-presentation of a complaint after curing defects should relate back to the original presentation date. Additionally, it interpreted Section 142(b) of the Act, stating that the filing date, not the date of cognizance, determines compliance with the limitation period. en-us Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 May 2023 14:28:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308024 The court determined that the date of the initial presentation of the complaint to the Magistrate is crucial for filing within the limitation period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It resolved a conflict between two High Court decisions, emphasizing that the date of initial presentation is significant. The court clarified that the Magistrate does not have the power to return a complaint for rectification of defects once filed. It held that re-presentation of a complaint after curing defects should relate back to the original presentation date. Additionally, it interpreted Section 142(b) of the Act, stating that the filing date, not the date of cognizance, determines compliance with the limitation period. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308024