SAKETH INDIA LTD. AND ORS. versus INDIA SECURITIES LTD.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 963 · Decided: 10-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
SAKETH INDIA LTD. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
INDIA SECURITIES LTD. 
MARCH 10, 1999 
(KT. THOMAS AND M.B: SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Law : 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 : Sections 138 proviso (c) and 
142(b)-Cl1eque-Bouncing of--Complaint against-:-Filing of-Period of C 
limitation for-Computation of-ModC--Cause of action-Arising of-Date 
of-Notice demanding payment se1ved on drawer-HELD, the date on which 
the cause of action arises is to be executed-Rules followed-Adopted 
in-Section 9 of General Clauses Act, 1897-Ss. 12( 1) & 12(2) of Limitation 
Act, 1963. 
Cheques issued by the appellants in favour of the respondent bounced 
when presented for encashment as per the bank endorsement. The respon-
dent served a notice demanding payment, on the drawer on 29.9.1995.As per 
Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the appellants were 
required to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, 
which period expired on i.e. on or before 14.10.1995. 
Since the appellant failed to make the payment within stipulated time, 
the respondent filed complaints against the appellants on 15.11.1995 before 
D 
E 
the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who issued the process 
against the appellants. The petitions filed by the appellants for quashing the F 
aforesaid process were dismissed by the High Court. Hence these appeals. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the complaints were 
not filed within one month from the date on which the cause of action arose 
under Section 138(c) of the Act and, therefore, the complaints filed on 
15.11.1995 were beyond time. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Where a particular time is given from a certain date 
within which an act is to be done, the day on that day is to be excluded; the 
effect of defining period from such a day until such a day within which an H 
963 
964 
S_UPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 1 S.C.R. 
-A act is to be done is to exclude the first day and to include the last day. There 
is no reason for n_ot adopting this Rule which is consistently followed and 
which is adopted in the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Limitation Act, 
1963._ [967-B; 968-D] 
1.2. Applying the aforesaid Rule, the period of one months for filing 
B the complaint will be reckoned from the day immediately following the day 
on which the period of15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice by the 
drawer expires. Period of 15 days, in the present case, expired on 14.10.1995. 
So cause of action for filing the complaint would arise from 15.10.1995. That 
day (15.10.1995) is to be excluded for counting the period of one month. 
C Therefore, the complaint filed on 15.11.1995 is within time. [968-E] 
Ham Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 1 SCC 639, relied on. 
- Goldsmith Co. v. The West Metropolitan Railway Co., [1904] KB 1; 
Cmtwright v. Macconnack, [1963] 1 All ER 11; MaJTen v. Dawson Bentley & 
D Co. Ltd., [1961] 2 QB 135; Stewmt v. Chadman, [1951] 2 KB 792 and /11 re: 
Nmth, Ex pmte. Was luck (1895] 2 QB 264, cited._ 
Halsbwy's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 37 pp 92 and 95, referred 
to. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 288-289 of 1999. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.97 of the Karnataka High 
Court in Crl.i>. No. 2152 of 1996. 
G. Umapathy and Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellants. 
Mohit Mathur for Subramonium Prasad for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH, J. Leave granted. 
The short question involved in these appeals is whether the com-
plaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instru-
ments Act is within or beyond time as it is contended that it is not filed 
within one month from the date on which the cause of action arose under 
clause ( c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 
H (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 
/ 
SA.KEIB IND.IA LTD. v. INDIA SECURITIES LTD. [SHAH,J.] 
965 
_.. 
In the present case, cheques dated 15th and 16th March, 1995 issued A 
by the appellants bounced when presented for encashment as per the bank 
endorsement. Notices WP,re served on the accused on 29th September, 
1995. As per section 138 (c) accused were required to make payment of 
the said amount of money within 15 days. The accused failed to pay the 
I I 
said amount, hence the cause of action for filing the complaint arose from B 
15th October, 1995. Complaints were filed on 15th November, 1995. There-
fore, it 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.