https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442727 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed on the ground that the cheque represented a time-barred debt where the promissory note fixed repayment by December 2016 and limitation ran from expiry of that fixed time. The record showed the cheque and complaint were within the subsisting limitation period, so the debt was not facially time-barred. The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, together with Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, supported the existence of a legally enforceable liability. Interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was therefore unwarranted, and the quashing order was set aside. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Sep 2025 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442727 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed on the ground that the cheque represented a time-barred debt where the promissory note fixed repayment by December 2016 and limitation ran from expiry of that fixed time. The record showed the cheque and complaint were within the subsisting limitation period, so the debt was not facially time-barred. The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, together with Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, supported the existence of a legally enforceable liability. Interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was therefore unwarranted, and the quashing order was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442727