2019 (9) TMI 1654 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - time limitation - sole argument of the respondent commended to the High Court was that a legal notice was not duly served on him within the statutory period - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - HELD THAT - There are no manner of doubt that the reason commended to the High Court is unacceptable. For the fact that notice was duly served on the respondent or otherwise is a triable issue; and cannot be proceeded as an indisputable position-as is expounded by this Court in Ajeet Seeds Limited vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah 2014 (8) TMI 464 - SUPREME COURT - the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Dishonor of cheque - legal notice has been served on the respondent within the statutory period or not - remark noted on the cheque return memo - HELD THAT - The facts would require the parties to produce evidence and are triable issues as expounded by this Court in Ajeet Seeds Limited vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah 2014 (8) TMI 464 - SUPREME COURT and in Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat and Others 2012 (12) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT . As a result even this appeal ought to succeed. The impugned judgment and order is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed. Dishonor of cheque - service of legal notice within the statutory period or not - HELD THAT - There are no manner of doubt that the reason which commended the High Court in our opinion is unacceptable for the fact that the notice was duly served on the respondent or otherwise is a triable issue and cannot be proceeded as indisputable position as is expounded by this Court in Ajeet Seeds Limited vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah 2014 (8) TMI 464 - SUPREME COURT - appeal allowed. Dishonor of cheque - legal notice has not been served on the respondent within the statutory period - remark noted on the cheque return memo - HELD THAT - Both these facts would require the parties to produce evidence and are triable issues as expounded by this Court in in Ajeet Seeds Limited vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah 2014 (8) TMI 464 - SUPREME COURT and in Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat and Others 2012 (12) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT . As a result even this appeal should succeed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Legal notice service within statutory period.
3. Triable issues requiring evidence.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to appeals against orders quashing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court allowed the applications filed by the respondents for quashing the proceedings based on the argument that legal notices were not duly served within the statutory period.

2. The main contention of the appellants was that the reasons accepted by the High Court for quashing the proceedings were not acceptable. The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of whether the notice was duly served or not is a triable issue and cannot be considered indisputable. The Court cited precedents to support this position.

3. The Court highlighted that the facts regarding the service of legal notices and the remarks on the cheque return memo are triable issues that require the parties to produce evidence. The judgments cited by the Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of such issues before reaching a final decision.

4. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and allowed the appeals. The Court directed that the complaints against the respondents shall proceed in accordance with the law. The parties were instructed to appear before the Trial Court on a specified date for further proceedings.