https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95759 A complaint under s.138 NI Act was held not maintainable because the statutory demand notice was issued about seven months after dishonour, beyond the 30-day mandate in s.138(b), so no valid cause of action arose. Independently, the complaint was treated as time-barred since cognizance of a delayed complaint under s.142(b) requires an application showing sufficient cause and an order condoning delay, which were absent, rendering cognizance illegal; the complaint was therefore liable to rejection. The defence that the cheque was a "security cheque" raised disputed facts and, in any event, a security cheque can mature into enforceable liability. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld as the payee's bank branch fell within jurisdiction. Petition allowed. - HC en-us Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:38 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:48:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95759 A complaint under s.138 NI Act was held not maintainable because the statutory demand notice was issued about seven months after dishonour, beyond the 30-day mandate in s.138(b), so no valid cause of action arose. Independently, the complaint was treated as time-barred since cognizance of a delayed complaint under s.142(b) requires an application showing sufficient cause and an order condoning delay, which were absent, rendering cognizance illegal; the complaint was therefore liable to rejection. The defence that the cheque was a "security cheque" raised disputed facts and, in any event, a security cheque can mature into enforceable liability. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld as the payee's bank branch fell within jurisdiction. Petition allowed. - HC Highlights Indian Laws Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:38 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95759