Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 310 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of cheque - insufficiency of funds - acquittal of offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - legally enforceable debt as contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act or not - limitation of a liability beyond a period of three years - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the record reveals that, in the instant case, the last business transaction between the parties took place on 26.7.2005 and thereafter, no other business transaction took place between the parties. The Appellate Court has, hence, rightly held that in these circumstances, the cause of action to enforce the said liability, as per law, against the respondent No.2 remained in existence only up to July 2008. Further, it has also been correctly held by the Appellate Court that the Trial Court has although acknowledged the handwritten copy of the account statement, which had not been disputed by the respondent No. 2, to arrive at the conclusion that the cheque dated 12.6.2009, was not against the time-barred liability, but a perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the said document pertains to the account being maintained by the respondent No.2 (appellant therein) and is about the balance which got forwarded on 1.4.2009 and cash entry of ₹ 5000/-, dated 2.6.2009, and even if the said document is deemed to be correct, the said payment of ₹ 5000/- on 2.6.2009 does not extend the period of limitation since the cash payment was made after the expiry of the period of limitation - Though, it is correct that once the signatures are admitted on the cheque, existence of legally enforceable debt or liability has to be presumed, but it is to be noted that the said presumption is rebuttable and in the instant matter, the respondent No.2 has been able to rebut the said presumption by showing that the liability for payment against the goods supplied arose in July 2005 and the limitation to file the case on the said liability expired in July 2008. It is well settled that the presumption, which is contained in Section 139 of the NI Act, only raises the presumption that the cheque has been issued for the discharge of a debt or liability and existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption. The Appellate Court has rightly held that the alleged responsibility of the respondent No.2, if any, had already become time-barred as on the date of the issuance of cheque and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability - Petition dismissed.
|