TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....03.2020 by the appellant in his bank account maintained in State Bank of India, which was returned unpaid with the remarks 'PAYMENT STOPPED BY DRAWER' as per the cheque return memo dated 17.03.2020. The legal notice was sent by the complainant/appellant to the accused/respondent on 20.10.2020 and complaint was thereafter filed on 10.11.2020 under Section 138 of the said Act before the learned MM, Central District, Tis Hazari. It is claimed by the appellant that legal notice could not be issued within stipulated period under Section 138 of the Act due to Covid-19 situation and prevailing lockdown. 3. It is further the case of the appellant that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020 took suo motu cognizance and the period of limitation for the legal proceedings was extended from 15.03.2020 till further orders in view of challenges faced by the country on account of COVID-19 virus and resultant difficulties. Reference is also made to further directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orders dates 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 and 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020. It is urged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments Act, 1881 provides that nothing contained in Section 138 shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. In view of above, for an offence under Section 138 of the said Act, one of the essential requirements, as per Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 is that payee/holder in due course of the dishonoured cheque should have made a demand for the payment of the said amount of money (cheque amount) by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. "Regulated moveme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23(4) and Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12(A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and proviso (b) & (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws which prescribed period of limitation in instituting proceedings, outer limits within which the Court or Tribunal can condone the delay and termination of proceedings. 8. So far as the presentation of the cheques within the period of its validity is concerned, no directions for extension of any such period was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to proviso to clause (a) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the period prescribed under proviso (b) & (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws which prescribed period of limitation for instituting the proceedings, outer limits within which the Court or Tribunal can condone the delay and termination of proceedings from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 were directed to be excluded. As such, the payee or holder of the cheques in due course as the case may be could demand the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the che....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icient cause from filing the appeal within that period. It was observed that from 19.12.2019, the date on which the certified copy was admittedly received by the learned counsel for the appellant, the period of limitation would start running, which expired on 02.02.2020. Further, the period of 45 days for condoning the delay started running from 02.02.2020 and expired on 18.03.2020. As such, since the lockdown imposed on 24.03.2020, there was no impediment for the appellant to file appeal on or before 18.03.2020. Thereafter, the second contention relied by the appellant with reference to order dated 23.03.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020 was considered and it was observed that what was extended vide aforesaid order was only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the Statute. In the aforesaid background, the contention to get over the failure to file an appeal on or before 18.03.2020 based upon the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020 was held to be untenable. 11. A bare perusal of the orders passed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of limitation in all the proceedings, irrespective of that prescribed under general or special laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 but, while concluding the matter on 23.09.2021, this Court specifically provided for exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021. A look at the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear that while extension of prescribed period in relation to an appeal or certain applications has been envisaged Under Section 5, the exclusion of time has been provided in the provisions like Sections 12 to 15 thereof. When a particular period is to be excluded in relation to any suit or proceeding, essentially the reason is that such a period is accepted by law to be the one not referable to any indolence on the part of the litigant, but being relatable to either the force of circumstances or other requirements of law (like that of mandatory two months' notice for a suit against the Government10). The excluded period, as a necessary consequence, results in enlargement of time, over and above the period prescribed. 20.1. Having regard to the purpose for which this Court had exercised the plenary powers U....