SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 689

R. M. LODHA, KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Yogendra Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
Savitri Pandey – Respondent


Judgement Key Points
  • Premature complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not maintainable: No complaint can be filed for an offence under Section 138 unless the period of 15 days has elapsed after service of notice under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138; such a complaint before expiry of 15 days is no complaint in the eye of law, and no cognizance can be taken thereon, even if 15 days expire by the time the court considers it. (!) (!) (!)

  • Conditions for offence under Section 138: The offence requires satisfaction of all ingredients in the main provision and clauses (a), (b), and (c) of the proviso, including drawer’s failure to pay within 15 days of notice receipt; without this, no offence or cause of action arises. (!) (!) (!) (!)

  • Cognizance barred by Section 142: Courts cannot take cognizance under Section 138 except on a valid written complaint by payee/holder disclosing the offence; a premature complaint does not disclose cause of action under clause (c) of proviso to Section 138. (!) (!) (!) (!)

  • Remedy for complainant on premature complaint: Complainant cannot represent the same premature complaint later; must file a fresh complaint within one month of cause of action under Section 142(b), or seek condonation of delay under the proviso to Section 142(b) upon showing sufficient cause. (!) (!)

  • Direction for pending cases: In cases where complaints do not proceed due to prematurity, payee/holder may file fresh complaint within one month from the date of this decision, with delay condoned under proviso to Section 142(b). (!)

  • Ingredients of Section 138 offence: (i) cheque drawn for discharge of debt/liability; (ii) presented within validity period; (iii) returned unpaid for insufficiency/excess; (iv) notice within 30 days of dishonour info; (v) no payment within 15 days of notice. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)


Judgment

R.M. Lodha, CJI.

In the order of 03.04.2012, a two-Judge Bench of this Court granted leave in SLP (Crl.) No.5761 of 2010. The Court formulated the following two questions for consideration:

(i) Can cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138 (c) of the Act aforementioned? And,

(ii) If answer to question No.1 is in the negative, can the complainant be permitted to present the complaint again notwithstanding the fact that the period of one month stipulated under Section 142 (b) for the filing of such a complaint has expired?

2. The two-Judge Bench in that order noticed Section 138 and Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) and also referred to the two decisions of this Court, namely, (1) Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani and Anr.; [(2000) 7 SCC 183] and (2) Sarav Investment & Financial Consultancy Private Limited and Anr. v. Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund and Anr.; [(2007) 14 SCC 7









































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top