Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 118 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Saketh India Limited And Others vs M/S. India Securities Limited on 10 March, 1999

Jossy Kondody vs Chacko Thomas on 7 September, 1999

14. But in the decision in SIL Import v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters (supra), the Supreme Court has not noticed, the previous judgment reported in Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd : (supra), or the judgments referred to by the Apex Court in that judgment. But the Apex Court merely stated on a consideration of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the drawer received the notice by fax message on June 11, 1996, and therefore, the last date on which the complaint should have been filed was on July 26, 1996, and therefore, the complaint filed on August 8, 1996, is beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That finding is arrived at on the basis that on receipt of the notice by the drawer of the cheque on June 11, 1996, cause of action will arise on the expiry of 15 days therefrom viz., June 26, 1996 and the period for filing the complaint expired on July 26, 1996.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr Premish Verma vs Lokesh Sharma on 13 November, 2007

(24) In view of the aforementioned discussion, the word "of" used in proviso (a), (b) and (c) to Section 138 of the Act as also in Section 142(b) of the Act is akin to the word "from". Provision contained in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act as also Section 12 of the Limitation Act are therefore applicable. The interpretation of the words "within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice" appearing in proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act by the Apex Court in Saketh India Ltd. and others vs. India Securities Ltd. (supra) applies with full force to the present case. Therefore, the date on which the information from the Bank was received by the payee or the holder of the cheque is to be excluded while reckoning the period of thirty days within which the payee is required under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act to give a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque making a demand for the said amount of money. In the present case, since the information from the bank was received by the payee or the holder of the cheque on 23-08-2003 and notice was given on 22-09-2003, therefore, excluding the date on which the information was received by the payee or the holder of the cheque, the notice was given on the 30th day, i.e., within a period of thirty days of the receipt of information by the payee from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. Therefore, the ASJ erred in holding that no cause of action arose in favour of the payee or the holder of the cheque because the said notice was given after the expiry of the period of thirty days. The view taken by the ASJ, being contrary to law is liable to be set aside.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - D Deshmukh - Full Document

M/S.Career & Career Edu Services vs Ganadipathy Tulsi'S Jain Engineering ... on 6 March, 2019

1999 SCC (Cri) 600] does not lay down the correct law. Needless to say that any decision of this Court which takes a view contrary http://www.judis.nic.in 12 to the view taken in Saketh [Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 1 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 329] by this Court, which is confirmed by us, do not lay down the correct law on the question involved in this reference. The reference is answered accordingly.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next