https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309471 The Supreme Court allowed the appeals by the original complainant against the High Court's decision to quash the summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's finding that the debt was time-barred, emphasizing that the limitation period should be calculated based on the seven-year loan duration, not three years. The Court highlighted the importance of considering evidence regarding debt acknowledgment and legal presumptions under the Act. It also criticized the High Court for not hearing the complainant, leading to a recall application rejection. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with proper hearing opportunities for all parties involved. en-us Mon, 10 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Sep 2023 21:32:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309471 The Supreme Court allowed the appeals by the original complainant against the High Court's decision to quash the summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's finding that the debt was time-barred, emphasizing that the limitation period should be calculated based on the seven-year loan duration, not three years. The Court highlighted the importance of considering evidence regarding debt acknowledgment and legal presumptions under the Act. It also criticized the High Court for not hearing the complainant, leading to a recall application rejection. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with proper hearing opportunities for all parties involved. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309471