Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Limitation Period Extension on Holidays: When the last date for filing or taking action falls on a public holiday or bank holiday, the limitation period is extended to the next working day. This applies to various legal proceedings, including filing appeals, notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and other statutory actions.References: Tata Steel Ltd. VS Raj Kumar Banerjee - Supreme Court, Naresh Chand Jain VS State of NCT of Delhi at New Delhi - Delhi, Hemraj VS Rakesh Kumar Jain - Rajasthan]
Exclusion of Holidays in Computing Limitation: Courts and tribunals consistently hold that if the last date of a limitation period coincides with a holiday, that day and any subsequent days during which the office remains closed are excluded from the calculation. The period thus effectively extends to the next working day.References: M. G. Alexander VS Biju Chellappan - Kerala, ATUL BABULAL PRAJAPATI & ANR. VS SUHAS DINKAR BHATTBHATT & ORS - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, N. M. Minerals India Private Ltd. VS P. K. Raju - Kerala]
Application to Cheque Dishonour Cases: In cases involving cheque dishonour notices under Section 138, the date of receipt of information (e.g., bank return memo) is crucial. If the receipt date falls on a holiday, that day is excluded from the 30-day notice period. This ensures compliance with the statutory timeline for sending legal notices.References: Naresh Kumar vs Sandeep Kumar - Himachal Pradesh, N. M. Minerals India Private Ltd. VS P. K. Raju - Kerala]
Legal Precedents and Rules: The principles are supported by case law and statutory provisions, such as the Limitation Act, General Clauses Act, and specific Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that limitation periods are to be computed excluding holidays, ensuring fair and consistent application of law.References: M. G. Alexander VS Biju Chellappan - Kerala, ATUL BABULAL PRAJAPATI & ANR. VS SUHAS DINKAR BHATTBHATT & ORS - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Hemraj VS Rakesh Kumar Jain - Rajasthan]
Banks and legal authorities recognize that when the last date for a legal action, including submitting a cheque dishonour notice or filing an appeal, falls on a holiday, that day is excluded from the limitation period. This ensures that parties are not disadvantaged due to non-availability of banking or court services on holidays. The consistent judicial stance is to extend the limitation to the next working day, safeguarding the rights of the parties involved.
References:- Limitation extension on holidays: Tata Steel Ltd. VS Raj Kumar Banerjee - Supreme Court, M. G. Alexander VS Biju Chellappan - Kerala- Exclusion of holidays in legal timelines: N. M. Minerals India Private Ltd. VS P. K. Raju - Kerala, ATUL BABULAL PRAJAPATI & ANR. VS SUHAS DINKAR BHATTBHATT & ORS - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal- Cheque dishonour notice period: Naresh Kumar vs Sandeep Kumar - Himachal Pradesh, Hemraj VS Rakesh Kumar Jain - Rajasthan
Imagine this: You've received a dishonored cheque notice, and the final day to request delisting or file a complaint lands on a public holiday or bank closure. Does the clock stop, or do you lose your rights? This is a common dilemma for businesses and individuals dealing with cheque transactions under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. The question at hand is: Last Date for Delisting Cheque Coming on Holiday to be Excluded from Limitation by Banks?
In this post, we dive into the legal principles, Supreme Court interpretations, and practical guidance to clarify how holidays impact limitation periods in cheque-related matters. Note: This is general information based on precedents and statutes; consult a legal professional for advice specific to your case.
Generally, when the last date for filing a cheque-related complaint or delisting from a holiday list falls on a public holiday, that day is excluded from the limitation period. The next working day is treated as the effective last date. This principle stems from Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which applies to Central Acts and Regulations post its commencement. It states that acts or proceedings due on a holiday are considered done on the next open day Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 885.
The Supreme Court has reinforced this: when the last day of limitation falls on a public holiday, the act should be considered as performed on the next working day Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 885. This prevents unfair disadvantage to parties Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 885Sumeet Agarwal, Hyderabad VS C. E. I. Consultancy rep. by C. R. Singh - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006).
Section 10 explicitly provides: when a prescribed period expires on a day when the court or office is closed, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done on the next day on which the court or office is open Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 885. The Supreme Court in Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh (AIR 1957 SC 271) explained its purpose: to enable performance on the next working day if due on a holiday Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 885.
This ensures uniformity in time computation across Central laws, including those under the NI Act for cheque dishonor complaints (Section 138).
Supporting this, other precedents affirm: In view of Section 4 of the Limitation Act and the last day happens to be a public holiday, the day on which limitation expires, it is an established principle that whenever the last day of limitation happens to be a holiday the complaint has to be presented on the next working day Mediworld Infotech, rep. by its Partner VS C. E. I. Consultancy - Dishonour Of Cheque.
In cheque cases, timelines are strict—e.g., 30 days to send notice after dishonor info, or 15 days for drawer payment post-notice. If the last date for delisting a cheque (removing from holiday bounce list) or filing falls on a holiday, extension applies.
A key judgment holds: the benefit of the public holiday should be granted, deeming the act performed on the next working day Sumeet Agarwal, Hyderabad VS C. E. I. Consultancy rep. by C. R. Singh - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006). For instance, the date on which the cheque was returned and received by the respondent has to be excluded under Section 9 of General Clauses Act Sanjay Gawalani VS Sunil Satwani - Dishonour Of Cheque.
In delisting contexts, banks must recognize this: Limitation Period Extension on Holidays: When the last date for filing or taking action falls on a public holiday or bank holiday, the limitation period is extended to the next working day (drawing from related refs Tata Steel Ltd. VS Raj Kumar Banerjee - Supreme CourtNaresh Chand Jain VS State of NCT of Delhi at New Delhi - Delhi).
Further, From the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one can gather that the date when legal notice was received by the drawer of the cheque has to be excluded while counting 15 days' period M. Narsingh Rao VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 735 - 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 735.
Courts emphasize fairness: Several judgments note limitation extends if last date is a holiday Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 885Sumeet Agarwal, Hyderabad VS C. E. I. Consultancy rep. by C. R. Singh - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006). Even in tax or assessment cases, holidays are excluded: payment of Rs.3,47,717/- made in cash was on Sunday when banks were closed on account of holiday Santosh M. Bhandari VS Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (1), Hubballi. Presently At: The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Central Revenue Building, Navanagar, Hubballi - 2024 Supreme(Kar) 154 - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 154.
Contrasting strict views exist, insisting on the date itself, but the dominant Supreme Court-backed position prevails: next working day rules Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 885Sumeet Agarwal, Hyderabad VS C. E. I. Consultancy rep. by C. R. Singh - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006).
In cheque presentation: No doubt the cheque is to be presented within six months from the date on which it is drawn but for purposes of computing limitation, day on which it is drawn is to be excluded Bashir Ahmad Mir VS Gh. Hassan Ganai - 2008 Supreme(J&K) 300 - 2008 0 Supreme(J&K) 300. This mirrors holiday exclusions.
While broadly applicable:- Limited to Central Acts post-1897.- Overridden if statute specifies otherwise.- Discretionary unless excluded by law.
For NI Act Section 138, no explicit bar, so Section 10 applies. Though the special enactment does not mention the exclusion of public holiday, it has to be inferred from the existing practice Mediworld Infotech, rep. by its Partner VS C. E. I. Consultancy - Dishonour Of Cheque.
Also, first day exclusion is standard: Ordinarily in computing the time, the rule observed is to exclude the first day and to include the last Juli Bhansali W/o Shree Premchand Bhansali vs Sanjay Singhi S/o Shree T.C. Singhi - 2025 Supreme(Chh) 182 - 2025 0 Supreme(Chh) 182.
Courts invoke Section 10 unless contradicted Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 885. In cheque dishonor: If bank return memo date is holiday, exclude it from 30-day notice Naresh Kumar vs Sandeep Kumar - Himachal Pradesh.
Holidays do not bar justice. When the last date for cheque delisting or complaints falls on a holiday, exclude it—extend to the next working day per Section 10 General Clauses Act and precedents Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 885Sumeet Agarwal, Hyderabad VS C. E. I. Consultancy rep. by C. R. Singh - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006). This safeguards rights in fast-paced NI Act proceedings.
Key Points:- Supreme Court: Holiday last day → next working day Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 885.- Applies to delisting, notices, filings Sumeet Agarwal, Hyderabad VS C. E. I. Consultancy rep. by C. R. Singh - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006).- Exclude receipt/cause date too M. Narsingh Rao VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 735 - 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 735Juli Bhansali W/o Shree Premchand Bhansali vs Sanjay Singhi S/o Shree T.C. Singhi - 2025 Supreme(Chh) 182 - 2025 0 Supreme(Chh) 182.
Stay proactive: Calendar-check limitations. For tailored advice, seek expert counsel. This principle promotes equity in banking law.
References:1. Supreme Court/High Court on Section 10: Sridevi Datla VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 8852. Holiday extension in delisting/complaints: Sumeet Agarwal, Hyderabad VS C. E. I. Consultancy rep. by C. R. Singh - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006)3. Additional supports: Mediworld Infotech, rep. by its Partner VS C. E. I. Consultancy - Dishonour Of Cheque, Sanjay Gawalani VS Sunil Satwani - Dishonour Of Cheque, M. Narsingh Rao VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 735 - 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 735
#ChequeDishonorLaw, #LimitationHoliday, #BankingLegalTips
So if a person is required to submit a document to a court or office within a particular period, and if the last day of that period happens to be a holiday, it can be done on the next day. This extension applies only if the last day of the period happens to be a holiday. 17. ... In order to determine the period of six months, from the date on which the cheque was drawn, the crucial #HL_S....
Ltd., (1961) 2 QB 135 a case for compensation for injuries received in the course of employment, where for purposes of computing the period of limitation the date of the accident, being the date of the cause of action, was excluded. (See also Stewart v. ... Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, when a particular period is mentioned for performing an act, the first day has to be excluded, an....
General Clauses Act and the Limitation Act. Ordinarily in computing the time, the rule observed is to exclude the first day and to include the last. ... Thus, it is quite vivid that the appellant is entitled to get excluded 09.09.2022 for counting of 30 days as the date on which cause of action arises, is excluded in the computation.
of the said Act, particularly, in cases where the last date for filing an appeal or application falls on a court holiday: (i) Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. ... a holiday. ... Accordingly, the initial limitation period of 30 days (22 days in April 2022 + 8 days in May 2022) ended on 08.05.2022, which was a Sunday. In accordance with the provisions of the LIMITATION ACT....
delivered on 21.02.2025 has held that for computing 30 days’ period, if 30th day is fallen on holiday, the said period also need to be excluded. In the present case, 03.11.2024 being holiday for office also, the last day of limitation for filing the appeal on 04.11.2024. ... The question as to when the appellant came to know about the order is inconsequential, since the limitation for f....
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. ... from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 were directed to be excluded. ... In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand ....
The suit was filed after more than four and half years from the date of dishonoring of the cheque. 6. section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is reproduced below:- "14(1). ... Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the time period spent in prosecuting Civil proceedings relating to same matter in good faith in a Court having no jurisdiction or other cause of like nature is to be excluded. 8. ... The co....
It is his contention that he was constrained to make the said payments in cash as the same had to be made on the last date of the assessment year and it was a Sunday and Bank holiday. ... In the submissions, the assessee stated that payment of Rs.3,47,717/- made in cash was on Sunday when banks were closed on account of holiday. ... were closed either on account of holiday or strike;” 7.....
(1999) 3 SCC 1 in case of Saketh’s which is referred above, the very judgment of the Apex Court with regard to the discussion limitation period ought to have been computed, the date from which the limitation period is to computed, held, has to be excluded and hence ... limitation period under Section 142(b) for filing complaint against the drawer, the date 15.10.1995, held excludable. .....
has to be reckoned from the date on which the cheque or instrument was drawn. ... Seen from that perspective, the date on which the petitioner received the information of the dishonour of the cheque (i.e. 23.12.2006) is to be excluded for the purposes of computing the period of 30 days available under the Act for issuance of notice. ... Whereas clause (a) refers to the presentation of the cheque....
From the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one can gather that the date when legal notice was received by the drawer of the cheque has to be excluded while counting 15 days' period which must be clearly available to the drawer of the cheque for making payment of the cheque amount. 2 on 19.08.2010 and the complaint case was instituted on 03.09.2010. In the present case, the legal notice was received by opposite party no.
It is submitted that since the memorandum along with the cheque was returned by the concerned bank to the respondent on 25.1.2005, therefore, for the purpose of computation of limitation, the date on which the cheque was returned and received by the respondent has to be excluded. For this connection reliance has been placed on Section 9 of General Clauses Act, 1897, which reads as under: “9. Commencement and termination of time— (l) In any (Central Act) or Regulation made af....
No doubt the cheque is to be presented within six months from the date on which it is drawn but for purposes of computing limitation, day on which it is drawn is to be excluded and the last day is to be included meaning thereby the 25th of April, 2005 is to be excluded and 25th of October, 2005 is to be included.
However, it is the fact that in the verification statement there is no reference to the presentation of the cheque and its dishonour second time. In view of this, if the cheque was presented on 8/9/1997, the notice was within limitation as it was within 15 days from the date of its last dishonour. Thus, it is well settled legal position that there is no restriction regarding number of times the cheque can be presented and that on every subsequent presentation and di....
In view of Section 4 of the Limitation Act and the last day happens to be a public holiday, the day on which limitation expires, it is an established principle that whenever the last day of limitation happens to be a holiday the complaint has to be presented on the next working day, which shall be treated as the presentation of the complaint within time. Though the special enactment does not mention the exclusion of public holiday, it has to be inferred from the existing practice tha....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
