ANIL KUMAR GOEL versus KISHAN CHAND KAURA

ANIL KUMAR GOEL versus KISHAN CHAND KAURA

The amendment to Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not intended to operate retrospectively, and therefore could not be relied upon to extend the limitation period for complaints filed prior to its enactment. The complaint dated 28.11.1998 was not maintainable, as limitation had expired and the High Court erred in relying on the subsequent amendment.

Parties
Appellant: Anil Kumar Goel; Respondent: Kishan Chand Kaura
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Order Dated 16.03.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl.m. No. 10233 M of 2006
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Dishonour of Cheque, Limitation Under Negotiable Instruments Act, Retrospective Operation of Amendments
Criminal Law Negotiable Instruments Dishonour of Cheque Limitation Under Negotiable Instruments Act Retrospective Operation of Amendments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anil Kumar Goel

Appellant

Kishan Chand Kaura

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Order Dated 16.03.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl.m. No. 10233 M of 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proviso to Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, inserted in 2002, applies retrospectively to complaints filed prior to its enactment
  2. 2 Whether successive presentation of a dishonoured cheque confers fresh rights on the payee
  3. 3 Whether the complaint under Section 138 was maintainable given the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not intended to operate retrospectively, and therefore could not be relied upon to extend the limitation period for complaints filed prior to its enactment. The complaint dated 28.11.1998 was not maintainable, as limitation had expired and the High Court erred in relying on the subsequent amendment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court set aside
  • Proceedings pursuant to Complaint No. 120 of 1998 in the Court of JMIC, Chandigarh, quashed