ECON ANTRI LTD. versus ROM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 14 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 26-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Reference answered
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 74 
ECON ANTRI LTD. 
V. 
ROM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2006) 
AUGUST 26, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI,, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI 
AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s.142(b} and s.138, 
C proviso (c) - Cheque bouncing case- Complaint filed u!s.138 
of NI Act - Limitation period - One month period prescribed 
u/s. 142(b} of NI Act - Manner of calculation - Held: The 
period should be reckoned by excluding date on which cause 
of action arose - Where a particular time is given, from a 
D certain date, within which an act is to be done, the day of the 
date is to be excluded - Inapplicability of the Limitation Act 
- General Clauses Act, 1897 - s.9 - Limitation Act, 1963. 
Words and Phrases - words 'of, 'from' and 'after'. 
E 
The question for consideration before this Court 
was: whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is within or beyond 
time if it is not filed within one month from the date on 
which the cause of action arose under clause (c) of the 
F proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act. Reframed in simpler 
language, the question for consideration was whether for 
calculating the period of one month which is prescribed 
under Section 142(b) of the NI Act, the period has to be 
reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of 
G action arose. 
H 
Answering the Reference, the Court 
· HELD:1.1. It is not possible to hold that the word 'of' 
74 
ECON ANTRI LTD. v. ROM INDUSTRIES LTD. 
75 
occurring in Section 138(c) and 142(b) of the Negotiable 
A 
Instruments Act, 1881 is to be interpreted differently as 
against the word 'from' occurring in Section 138(a) of the 
N.I. Act; and that for the purposes of Section 142(b), 
which prescribes that the complaint is to be filed within 
30 days of the date on which the cause of action arises, 
B 
the starting day on which the cause of action arises 
should be included for computing the period of 30 days. 
The words 'of', 'from' and 'after' may, in a given case, 
mean really the same thing. The word 'of' is sometimes 
equivalent of 'after'. Even though Limitation Act is held c . 
to be not applicable to the NI Act, the above conclusion 
can be reached on the basis of Section 9 of the General 
. Clauses Act, 1897 and on the basis of a long line of 
English decisions that where a particular time is given, 
from a certain date, within which an act is to be done, the 
D 
day of the date is to be excluded. Section 9 of the General 
Clauses Act, 1897 states that in any Central Act or 
Regulation made after the commencement of the General 
Clauses Act, 1897, it shall be sufficient to use the word 
'from' for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of 
E 
days or any other period of time and to use the word 'to' 
for the purpose of including the last in a series of days 
or any other period of time. Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 states that this Section 
applies to all Central Acts made after the third day of 
January, 1868, and to all Regulations made on or after the 
F 
fourteenth day of January, 1887. This Section would, 
therefore, be applicable to the N.I. Act. [Paras 22, 24 and 
17) [95-A-C; 103-B-0; 104-B-C] 
1.2. It is thus held that for the purpose of calculating 
G 
the period of one month, which is prescribed under 
Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the period has to be 
reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of 
action arose. [Para 25) [104-E] 
H 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3 
B 
c 
SCC 1: 1999 (1) SCR 963 - affirmed. 
SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore 
(1999) 4 sec 567: 1999 (2) SCR 958 - overruled. 
Danial Latifi and Another v. U. 0.1. (2001) 7 SCC 7 40: 
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 419 - held inapplicable. 
Vasantlal Ranchhoddas Patel & Ors. v. Union of India & 
Ors. AIR 1967 Bombay 138 - approved. 
Haru Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal (1972) 1 SCC 
639: 1972 (3) SCR 329 and Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. 
Dinanath Sharma (2000) 8 SCC 649: 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 
634 --relied on. 
D 
Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashoka Alloy Steel 
Ltd. 
<~ Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 340; Subodh S. Salaskar v. 
Jayprakash M. Shah & Anr. (2008)13 SCC 689: 2008 (11) 
SCR 681; State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Himachal 
Techno Engineers & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 210: 2010 (8) SCR 
E 1025; The Member, Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthall 
A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.