Rayapati Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Renewable Energy Agency Ltd (IREDA) (Delhi High Court)
It is discernible that the words „of’ and „from‟ used under Section 138 N.I. Act do not imply different meanings. It is safe to infer that the use of the word „of‟ in Section 138(b) N.I. Act does not imply either that the day on which information regarding dishonor of cheque is received by the complainant from the bank is to be included while computing the limitation period for issuance of a valid legal notice.
While computing the limitation period of 30 days prescribed under Section 138(b) N.I. Act for issuance of a valid legal notice, the day on which intimation is received by the complainant from the bank that the cheque in question has been returned unpaid has to be excluded.
it is noted that the petitioner relies on the dates of return memos, i.e., dates of return of cheques in question, to compute the period of 30 days prescribed in the statute and contends that the legal demands notices were not issued in time. To the contrary, the complainant relies on the dates of receipt of return statements from its Bank, i.e., the dates on which intimation was received regarding dishonor of the cheques in question, to submit that the legal demand notices were issued within the statutory period.
Considering the decision in Munoth Investments (Supra) where the Supreme Court took into account the date of receipt of debt advice by the complainant to decide the issue of limitation instead of the date of return of the cheques in question, the ratio of the decision in Econ Antri (Supra) and the material placed on record in the present case to indicate that the information regarding dishonor of the cheques in question came to the notice of the complainant Company vide the return statements, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the legal notices were posted by the complainant Company within 30 days of the receipt of information from its Bank regarding dishonor of the cheques in question and were not time-barred. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner do not weigh with this Court and are accordingly rejected. However, at the same time, the defence that the complainant Company obtained knowledge of the dishonor of the cheques in question prior to the receipt of return statements from its Bank remains available to the petitioners but the same being a question of fact shall be a matter of trial.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint Nos. 20581/2016, 15489/2016 and 941/2017 respectively, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, qua the petitioners. While petitioner No.1 is the accused Company, petitioner No.2 is its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. The above-noted petitions arise out of different complaints filed under Section 138 read with Sections 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, referred to as „the N.I. Act‟) and involve the same parties. Accordingly, the petitions are taken up for hearing together and shall be disposed of by a common order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned criminal complaints are not maintainable qua the petitioners, as the relevant legal demand notices were issued after the expiry of statutory period of 30 days set out under the N.I. Act. It is contended that the said notices being invalid, the necessary ingredients of Section 138(b) N.I. Act are not satisfied and thus, the impugned criminal complaints ought to be quashed.
4. I have heard the submissions made as well as perused the material placed on record.
5. A reading of the case records would show that the respondent/complainant is a Company engaged in the business of lending of financial assistance for renewable energy projects. Pursuant to the petitioner Company approaching it for a loan facility, a transaction was entered into between the complainant Company and the petitioner Company, in due course whereof, three cheques dated 31.03.2015, 30.09.2015 and 30.06.2016 respectively were issued by the petitioner Company in favor of the complainant Company towards partial discharge of its liability. However, the cheques in question got dishonored upon presentation and were returned vide return memos dated 29.05.2015, 19.10.2015 and 21.07.2016 respectively with the remarks „drawer sign differ‟ and „no funds‟.
The complainant Company is stated to have received return statements from its Bank on 19.06.2015, 29.10.2015 and 27.07.2016 in respect of the aforesaid cheques, indicating that the same had got dishonored. Consequently, it posted legal demand notices on 07.07.2015, 28.11.2015 and 26.08.2016 respectively calling upon the petitioner Company to repay the debt owed within 15 days of receipt of the notices. When the due amount was not repaid within the statutory period, the impugned criminal complaints came to be filed against the petitioners, who as noted above are the accused Company and its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory respectively.
The details of the aforesaid complaints are summarized in the table given below:-
