“Whether for calculating the period of one month which is prescribed under Section 142(b), the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose?” (There is a variance between the view expressed by this Court on the above question in Saketh and in SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore[2].) Having considered the question of law involved in this case in proper perspective, in light of relevant judgments, we are of the opinion that Saketh lays down the correct proposition of law. We hold that for the purpose of calculating the period of one month, which is prescribed under Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose. We hold that SIL Import USA does not lay down the correct law. Needless to say that any decision of this Court which takes a view contrary to the view taken in Saketh 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.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS




As the Limitation Act is held  to  be  not  applicable  to  N.I.  Act,
drawing parallel from Tarun Prasad Chatterjee  where the Limitation Act  was
held not applicable, we are of the opinion that with the aid  of  Section  9
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 it can be safely concluded  in the  present
case that while calculating the period of  one  month  which  is  prescribed
under Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the  period  has  to  be  reckoned  by
excluding the date on which the cause of action arose.
it is not possible to hold that  the  word  ‘of’
occurring in Section 138(c) and 142(b) of the N.I. Act is to be  interpreted
differently as against the word ‘from’ occurring in Section  138(a)  of  the
N.I. Act; and that for the purposes  of  Section  142(b),  which  prescribes
that the complaint is to be filed within 30 days of the date  on  which  the
cause of action arises, the starting  day  on  which  the  cause  of  action
arises should be included for computing the period of 30 days.  As  held  in
Ex parte Fallon[27] the words ‘of’, ‘from’  and  ‘after’  may,  in  a  given
case,  mean  really  the  same  thing.   As  stated  in  Stroud’s   Judicial
Dictionary, Vol. 3 1953 Edition,  Note  (5),  the  word  ‘of’  is  sometimes
equivalent of ‘after’.
We have noted  that  in  this
case reliance is not merely placed on Section 12(1) of the  Limitation  Act.
Reliance is also placed on Section 9 of the General Clauses  Act.   However,
since, in the instant case we have reached a  conclusion  on  the  basis  of
Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and on the basis of a  long  line
of English decisions that where a particular time is given, from  a  certain
date, within which an act is to be done, the  day  of  the  date  is  to  be
excluded,
we  are  of  the  opinion  that
Saketh lays down the correct proposition of  law.   We  hold  that  for  the
purpose of calculating the period of one month, which  is  prescribed  under
Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the period has to be reckoned  by  excluding
the date on which the cause of action arose.  We hold that  SIL  Import  USA
does not lay down the correct law.  Needless to say  that  any  decision  of
this Court which takes a view contrary to the view taken in Saketh  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. -2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS


Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)