https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784451 A complaint under s.138 NI Act was challenged as non-maintainable due to an unduly delayed statutory notice and limitation. The HC held that issuance of the demand notice nearly seven months after dishonour was contrary to s.138(b); absent a valid notice within 30 days, the statutory cause of action did not arise, rendering the complaint liable to rejection. Independently, the HC held the complaint was time-barred under s.142(b) because it was filed beyond the prescribed period without any application seeking condonation and without any order condoning delay; cognizance in such circumstances is illegal, so the complaint was rejected. The plea that the cheque was a "security" was not a ground to quash, and territorial jurisdiction was upheld. Petition allowed. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784451 A complaint under s.138 NI Act was challenged as non-maintainable due to an unduly delayed statutory notice and limitation. The HC held that issuance of the demand notice nearly seven months after dishonour was contrary to s.138(b); absent a valid notice within 30 days, the statutory cause of action did not arise, rendering the complaint liable to rejection. Independently, the HC held the complaint was time-barred under s.142(b) because it was filed beyond the prescribed period without any application seeking condonation and without any order condoning delay; cognizance in such circumstances is illegal, so the complaint was rejected. The plea that the cheque was a "security" was not a ground to quash, and territorial jurisdiction was upheld. Petition allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784451