Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2009 (2) JCC (NI) 143 and "Joseph Sartho Vs Gopinath Nair" 2009 (I) CCC 443 (Kerala) (DB), it would be clear that in the absence of acknowledgment 'within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act 1995', a time barred debt can not be considered to be a legally recoverable liability. At the same time, from the ratio of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled "H.Narasimha Rao Vs Venkataram R" reported in 2007 CLJ 583, it is held that, although in the given case, there may not be acknowledgment for extension of the period of limitation, yet the factum of issuance of cheque and its dishonour would constitute an offence U/s 138 of the Act. In the said case, a debt of Rs. 60,000/­ had become time barred on 12.06.1997, still the accused chose to issue two cheques CC No. 79/1 Om Prakash Jain Vs Parmod Kumar Page of 10 which dishonoured on presentation. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that since the complainant had not disputed his signatures on the dishonoured cheque, they constituted an agreement or compromise by the debtor to pay the time barred debt. In the said case, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed, while placing reliance on the observation made by 'Lord Mansfield in Hawkers Vs Saunders" (1782) 98 ER 1091 as under: ­ "Where a man is under a legal or equitable obligation to pay, the law implies a promise, though none was ever actually made. A fortiorio, a legal or equitable duty is a sufficient consideration for an actual promise. Where a man is under a moral obligation, which no Court of Law or equity can enforce, and promises, the honesty and rectitude of the thing is a consideration. As if a man promises to pay a just debt, the recovery of which is barred by the Statute of Limitations; or, if a man, after he comes of age, promises to pay a meritorious debt contracted during his minority, but not for necessaries or if a bankrupt, in affluent circumstances after his certificate, promises to pay the whole of his debts; or if a man promises to perform a secret trust, or a trust void for want of writing, by the Statute of Frauds.