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

MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.P. Sahi, C.J. and Subramonium Prasad, J.
Refex Energy Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Union of India and Anr. —Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.11150 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.8571 of 2016
Decided on 18.12.2019

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. Govindarajan for Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. D. Saravanan, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: No appearance

IMPORTANT POINT
Parliament is competent to bring out amendment under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 142(2)—Dishonour of cheque—Challenge to amendment to Section 142(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, primarily on the ground that amendment goes completely contrary to judgment of Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharastra, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 3519—Legislation can take away basis of a judgment—There is no infirmity in amendment—Even otherwise, Parliament is competent to bring out amendment under Negotiable Instruments Act—Said amendment cannot be said to be ultra vires in view of provisions of Act or Part III of Constitution of India—Amendment cannot also be called to be manifestly arbitrary in absence of any materials on record—Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 2, 6 and 7)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Subramonium Prasad, J.—The instant challenge is to the amendment to Article 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, primarily on the ground that the amendment goes completely contrary to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 3519.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this amendment amounts to setting at naught a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court which is not permissible in law. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is well settled right from the decision in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd., etc., v. Broach Borough Municipality and others reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 192 that Legislation can take away the basis of a judgment.

3. The Honourable Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra) summed up the law relating to the place of suing as under:

“56. To sum up:

(i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank.

(ii) Cognizance of any such offence is however forbidden under Section 142 of the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder of the cheque in due course within a period of one month from the date the cause of action accrues to such payee or holder under clause (c) of proviso to Section 138.

(iii) The cause of action to file a complaint accrues to a complainant/payee/holder of a cheque in due course if

(a) the dishonoured cheque is presented to the drawee bank within a period of six months from the date of its issue.

(b) If the complainant has demanded payment of cheque amount within thirty days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque and

(c) If the drawer has failed to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days of receipt of such notice.

(iv) The facts constituting cause of action do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

(v) The proviso to Section 138 simply postpones/defers institution of criminal proceedings and taking of cognizance by the Court till such time cause of action in terms of clause (c) of proviso accrues to the complainant.

(vi) Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant, the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case will be determined by reference to the place where the cheque is dishonoured.

(vii) The general rule stipulated under Section 177 of Cr.P.C applies to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the Court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable under Section 138 is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of Section 220(1) read with Section 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is covered by the provisions of Section 182(1) read with Sections 184 and 220 thereof.”

4. In order to resolve the concerns regarding the said judgment, the President of India promulgated an Ordinance, called Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015. The said Ordinance, thereafter, became an Act, namely, Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015. Amendments were made by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, which read as under:

“An Act further to amend the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixtysixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—

1.(1) This Act may be called the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015.

(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 15th day of June, 2015.

2. In the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top