MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Upholds Legal Validity of Cheques for Time-Barred Debts

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that cheques issued for time-barred debts remain legally valid, thus setting a crucial precedent for cases involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice A.S. Bopanna on September 6, 2023.

The case, involving complaints under Section 138, revolved around the interpretation of the legal status of cheques issued in relation to debts that had exceeded the statutory limitation period. The court's observation on this matter forms the core of its groundbreaking decision.

Justices stated: "The cheque issued for Rs. 10,00,000/- which is the subject matter herein is dated 28.04.2017, which is well within the period of limitation. The complaint in CC No. 681 of 2017 was filed in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 11.07.2017. So is the case in the analogous complaints. Therefore, in the instant case, not only the amount was a legally recoverable debt which is evident on the face of it, the complaint was also filed within time. Hence there was no occasion whatsoever in the instant case to exercise the power under Section 482 to quash the complaint."

This observation underscores the court's ruling that the issuance of a cheque, even for a debt that has exceeded the limitation period, does not render it legally unenforceable. The judgment reinforces that the commencement of the limitation period should be based on the terms of the debt agreement.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of examining each case's unique circumstances to determine whether a debt or liability is legally enforceable. The court's verdict also reaffirms the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding cheque issuance.

This ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for cases related to the validity of cheques in debt recovery matters, particularly in situations where the debt may have exceeded the statutory limitation period.

The Supreme Court's decision ultimately restores complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the Trial Court for expeditious disposal, thus ensuring that justice is served in accordance with the law.

The appeals in this case have been allowed, and no costs have been imposed. This landmark judgment is set to guide future legal proceedings involving time-barred debts and cheque validity.       

Date of Decision: September 06, 2023

Hymavathi vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/06-Sep-2023_K.-HYMAVATHI_Vs_State_AP.pdf"]

Latest Legal News