Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Satyapal Mittal vs Rbl Bank Ltd on 21 May, 2019

                IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH JAIN: CIVIL JUDGE
                    NORTH WEST: ROHINI COURTS : DELHI


Satyapal Mittal
Prop. of M/s Krishna Udyog
412/1, Firni Road, Village Mundka, Delhi­41                                ....Plaintiff

                                           versus
1. RBL Bank Ltd.
4th Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi

2. Vinod Giri
Prop. of Vinod Electricals
520/A, First Floor, Ganpati Industrial Area
Dilshad Garden, Shahdara
Near Mansarovar Metro Station, Delhi­32                                  ...Defendants


                     SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS 2,32,288/­
                     Date of institution            : 28.05.2018
                     Date of decision               : 21.05.2019
                     Final Order                    : Dismissed
JUDGMENT

BRIEF FACTS

1. Plaintiff and one Sh. Vinod Giri, proprietor of M/s Vinod Electricals (defendant no. 2, who was subsequently deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 17.12.2018), were in business dealings wherein Sh. Vinod Giri in discharge of his part liability had issued a cheque bearing no. 286145 dated 11.11.2017 for a sum of Rs 2,20,188/­ drawn on Axis Bank, Shahdara, Delhi in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated by the plaintiff that the said cheque was presented in the bank i.e. defendant no.

1 for encashment on 12.02.2018 for clearing the same. However, said cheque was not presented by defendant no. 1 in clearance and was returned vide return memo dated 12.02.2018 for the reason 'instrument outdated'. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the validity of the cheque is three months from the date of issue, in view of which, the said cheque was valid till 11.02.2018. However, on account of holiday on 10.02.2018 and 11.02.2018, the defendant no. 1/ bank was closed and therefore, the cheque should have been honoured on 12.02.2018. Hence, plaintiff served a legal notice dated 09.04.2018 upon the defendant but to no avail. Aggrieved, plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs 2,32,288/­ (inclusive of interest @ 12% p.a. from 12.02.2018 to 11.05.2018 and legal notice charges).

2. Despite service of summons, defendant failed to appear and therefore, due to non­appearance, it was proceeded exparte on 08.10.2018. It remained exparte thereafter.

TRIAL

3. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 vide affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he re­iterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon following documents:

(i) Ex. PW1/1 - original cheque no. 286145;

(ii) Ex. PW1/2 - returning memo dated 12.02.2018;

(iii) Ex. PW1/3 - notice dated 09.04.2018;

(iv) Ex. PW1/4 - two original postal receipts and

(v) Ex. PW1/5 - two tracking reports.

3.1 He was not cross examined as the defendant remained exparte during trial.

No other witness was examined and PE stood closed on the same day. Heard. Perused.

FINDINGS

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the date of maturity of cheque being a holiday, the cheque should have been encashed on the succeeding business day. In this respect, plaintiff has relied upon Section 25 of Negotiable Instruments Act' 1881 which is herein reproduced:

"When day of maturity is a holiday - when the day on which a promissory note or bill of exchange is at maturity is a public holiday, the instrument shall be deemed to be due on the next preceding business day. Explanation­ the expression 'public holiday' includes Sundays and any other day declared by the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette, to be a public holiday."

Plaintiff has produced the cheque bearing no. 286145 dated 11.11.2017 Ex. PW1/1 and the returning memo dated 12.02.2018 Ex. PW1/2. It is found that the limitation period for getting the cheque encashed expired on 11.02.2018. However, 10.02.2018 and 11.02.2018 being Saturday and Sunday (holidays), in view of Section 25 of NI Act, the cheque will mature on the 'next preceding business day'. It is stated by the plaintiff that the 'next preceding business day' shall be construed to be the 'next working day' from the day of holiday. In this context, the plaintiff has relied upon para no. 7 of K Subbaraman vs Iyyammal [1999 (1) Civil Court Cases 499 CS No. 759/18 Page 3 of 5 (MAD)]. On perusal of this judgment, it is found that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has only referred to the complaint filed in this respect, and has not given any finding on this aspect. The reference of Section 25 NI Act by the Hon'ble High Court can not be construed to be the ratio in the above mentioned case.

4.1 By way of literal interpretation, the term 'next preceding business day' implies to be the last working day before the holiday in common parlance. In this respect, I am herein reproducing para no. 73 of the Eleventh Report (Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881) of Law Commission of India dated 26.09.1958 ­ "In Section 25, we have substituted the words 'succeeding business day' for 'next preceding business day'. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act (X of 1897) provides that where a law requires something to be done in any office on or within a certain day on which the office happens to be closed, the Act may be considered as duly done if it done on the next day on which the office is open. Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which lays down a contrary rule for commercial transaction, causes inconvenience to the business people and all the Chambers of Commerce have urged the change we have proposed. It is to be noted that the Geneva Convention has also adopted the 'succeeding business day' rule".

4.2 It was the proposal extended by the Law Commission of India to bring in the change and amend the NI Act as the same may cause inconvenience to the business class. However, no such amendment has been done in the NI Act and still the 'next preceding business day' rule is followed.

4.3 It comes out that the cheque was valid till 11.02.2018 wherein three months period had lapsed. However, on account of holiday on 10.02.2018 and 11.02.2018, the 'next preceding business day' will be 09.02.2018, the day on which the validity of the cheque had expired.

RELIEF

5. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, the plaintiff is unable to prove his case. Accordingly, the present suit stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Announced in open court today.

(Manish Jain) Civil Judge, North West Rohini Courts, Delhi 21.05.2019 CS No. 759/18 Page 5 of 5