ECON ANTRI LTD. versus ROM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.

ECON ANTRI LTD. versus ROM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.

For the purpose of calculating the period of one month prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose.

Parties
Appellant: ECON ANTRI LTD.; Respondent: ROM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Reference to Larger Bench; Decision on Point of Law
Outcome
Reference answered in favour of exclusion of the cause of action date for limitation calculation under Section 142(b) of the NI Act.
Legal Topics
Negotiable Instruments, Limitation Periods, Cheque Dishonour
Criminal Law Banking Law Negotiable Instruments Limitation Periods Cheque Dishonour

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 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ECON ANTRI LTD.

Appellant

ROM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Reference to Larger Bench; Decision on Point of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether for calculating the period of one month prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose

Ratio Decidendi

For the purpose of calculating the period of one month prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose.

Court Disposition

Reference answered in favour of exclusion of the cause of action date for limitation calculation under Section 142(b) of the NI Act.

Orders

  • It is held that for the purpose of calculating the period of one month 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.
  • Any decision of the Court which takes a contrary view to Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. does not lay down the correct law on the question.