2005 (7) TMI 730

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The facts giving rise to the dispute is that the applicant's firm M/s singh Brothers, Dhampur, District Bijnor is a registered firm and deals in the business of Khandsari sugar, The applicant Ganga Ram (complainant) is managing partner of the firm. The contesting opposite parties are engaged in manufacturing the crystal less (Boora) and used to purchase sugar from the complainant on credit. It is stated that after the accounts were settled, outstanding amount of Rs. 53,000/ was due against the opposite parties. An account payee cheque dated 25.9.1991 was issued for a sum of Rs. 54,000/ drawn in Canara Bank Dhampur Branch, District Bijnor in the name of Singh Brothers. The cheque was dishonoured for paucity of funds. This information was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani and Anr., AIR2000SC2946 . Learned counsel has argued on the basis of the aforesaid decision that no period is prescribed before which the complaint can not be filed and if filed, not disclosing the cause of action in terms of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court may not take cognizance till the time the cause of action arises to the complainant. Emphasis has been laid on the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision; "Taking cognizance of an offence" by the court has to be distinguished from the filing of the complaint by the complainant. If the complaint is found to be prematured, it can await maturity, be returned to the complainant for filing la....