A V MURTHY Vs. B S NAGABASAVANNA
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-112
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
February 08,2002
A.V.MURTHY
Appellant
VERSUS
B.S.NAGABASAVANNA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
S. NATARAJAN VS. SAMA DHARMAN [LAWS(SC)-2014-7-98] [REFERRED TO]J. SHAMLAL VS. G. MANOHARAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.S.D.M. & CO., NO.6, AZIZ MULK 1ST STREET, THOUSAND LIGHT, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-199] [REFERRED TO]
S.N. RAJU VS. R. RAJU [LAWS(KAR)-2021-12-84] [REFERRED TO]
P N GOPINATHAN VS. SIVADASAN KUNJU [LAWS(KER)-2006-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
J. CHITRANJAN AND COMPANY PROPRIETOR C.D SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 1 ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-10-132] [REFERRED TO]
PRAJAN KUMAR JAIN VS. RAVI MALHOTRA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-148] [REFERRED TO]
DILIPBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL VS. HAJI SHABBIRBHAI HASANBHAI VORA [LAWS(GJH)-2012-5-205] [REFERRED TO]
V.RAVICHANDRAN VS. K.KANNAIAH [LAWS(CAL)-2016-6-116] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2002-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAPPA VS. MUNIVENKATAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-1203] [REFERRED TO]
K. HYMAVATHI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED VS. BISHAL JAISWAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
KAPTAN SINGH THAKUR VS. BETWA DEVELOPERS LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2006-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
DHANJIT SINGH NANDA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
FAIZAL KHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
K K RAMAKRISHNAN VS. K K PARTHASARADHY [LAWS(KER)-2003-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
SANGAMESHWAR CHITS PVT LTD VS. G R MARIGOUDAR [LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-556] [REFERRED]
RAJA RAJESHWARI AGENCIES VS. RUSTIQUE FURNITURE [LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-72] [REFERRED TO]
CHOWDAIAH VS. B.E. PRASHANTH [LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-194] [RERERRED TO]
SHREEYANSH RAYAPPA NANDESHWAR VS. PRAKASH PONDE [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESH BHAT A VS. ROHIDAS SHENOY [LAWS(KAR)-2009-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
H. Narasimha Rao VS. R. Venkataram [LAWS(KAR)-2006-10-82] [REFERRED TO]
SAHAKAR MAHARSHI SHANKARRAO MOHITE PATIL NAGARI GRAMIN SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA AND ANOTHER VS. SUBHASH BHIMRAO GAVSANE AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-2007-1-157] [REFERRED]
SAHAKAR MAHARSHI SHANKARRAO MOHITE PATIL NAGARI GRAMIN SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA VS. SUBHASH BHIMRAO GAVSANE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-75] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH KARTHA D RAVINDRANATH KARTHA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
TRAVEL FORCE VS. MOHAN N BHAVE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE HARI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DEEPAK VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-93] [REFERRED]
DINESH B. CHOKSHI VS. RAHUL VASUDEO BHATT [LAWS(BOM)-2012-10-107] [REFERRED TO]
S. KAMATCHI VS. ARKAA MEDICAMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-776] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA W/O ASHOK GOYAL VS. MALLIKARJUN TRADERS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-7-201] [REFERRED]
S.GANAPATHY VS. N.SENTHILVEL [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-249] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ VS. RAJKUMAR GANPATI MANUDHANE [LAWS(BOM)-2023-4-129] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN VIKRAM SINGH VS. RAJ SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2020-1-277] [REFERRED TO]
VARDHMAN STAMPING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. IMP POWER LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
SURESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI PARSANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-533] [REFERRED TO]
A. SRINIVASALU VS. KARTHIK KALEVAR [LAWS(KAR)-2015-4-88] [REFERRED TO]
MANDADI RAM REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2003-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
J.SHAMLAL VS. G.MANOHARAN, PROPRIETOR [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-79] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA NALWAYA VS. ISHWAR LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANDAS GANGARAMBHAI VS. PRADIPKUMAR HARGOVANBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNAN VS. PARTHASARDHY [LAWS(KER)-2003-3-139] [REFERRED TO]
C.K. ANTONY VS. MATHAI M. PAIKEDAY [LAWS(KER)-2014-6-140] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND VS. LAL CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD VS. NATIONAL AGRO SEEDS CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-112] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA GULABCHAND KOCHAR VS. SAKHARAM RAMDAS PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2009-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
R R J DASS VS. SATYA BHAMA LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2002-7-115] [REFERRED]
RAMKUMAR KAUSHWAHA VS. POORAN SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-89] [REFERRED TO]
USHA SRIDHAR VS. G S BISHT [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-359] [REFERRED TO]
WILSON MARCELIN CARVALHO VS. KRISHNA BUDHAJI PATIL [LAWS(KAR)-2012-11-99] [REFERRED TO]
VELLANKI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-12-431] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNAN VS. PARTHASARADHY [LAWS(KER)-2003-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR JHA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB TYRE HOUSE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2002-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
DILIPKUMAR MANHARLAL VYAS VS. GIRDHARLAL HIRAJIBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-510] [REFERRED TO]
R PARIMALA BAI VS. BHASKAR NARASIMHAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2018-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH B. CHOKSHI VS. RAHUL VASUDEO BHATT [LAWS(BOM)-2012-10-97] [REFERRED TO]
FOUR SEASONS ENERGY VENTURES PVT LTD VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA SINGH CHOUHAN VS. RAM GOPAL SHARMA [LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-170] [REFERRED TO]
IADAYAM INVESTMENTS VS. M RAMASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2017-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
SAROOP SINGH VS. RATTAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-174] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
K. G. Balakrishnan, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. The appellant herein filed a complaint before the Magistrate alleging that the respondent herein had committed an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, " the Act").The appellant alleged that he and his two friends had advanced a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs to the respondent about four years back the said amount despite repeated demands and finally at the request of the appellant, on 30-3-1998 the respondent issued a cheque in favour of the appellant. The appellant presented the cheque was dishonoured by the bank for the reason " Account closed ". Thereafter , the appellant issued a statutory demand notice and as the respondent failed to pay the amount, a complaint was filed before the magistrate by the appellant. In the complaint, it was alleged that the appellant and his two friends advanced the said sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs the respondent about four years prior to the respondent. The learned Magistrate issued summons to the respondent. The respondent filed a Criminal Revision before the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore, alleging that the complaint was not maintainable as the amount advanced by the appellant to him was about four years prior to the date of issue of the cheque, and in view of the 'Explanation' appended to S. 138 of the Act, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability as against the respondent. The Addl. Sessions Judge accepted this plea and held that even on the basis of the averments in the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant, the alleged borrowing was four years prior to the issuance of the cheque and hence that debt was not legally enforceable in view of the bar of limitation and, therefore, the Magistrate was in error in taking cognizance of the alleged offence under S. 138 of the Act. As a result, the Addl. Sessions Judge quashed the entire proceedings and aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Karnataka but the learned single Judge upheld the view of the Addl. Sessions Judge. The appeal has now come up before us.
(3.)We heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel contended that it was incorrect on the part of the Sessions Judge to hold that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the respondent. He also contended that when a cheque is issued, under S. 118 of the Act, it has to be presumed that it was drawn for consideration. It was further contended that even though the appellant and his friends advanced the loan about four years back, the respondent had acknowledged this liability in his balance sheet and that even for the purpose of a civil suit, such debt or liability is not barred by limitation.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. The appellant herein filed a complaint before the Magistrate alleging that the respondent herein had committed an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, " the Act").The appellant alleged that he and his two friends had advanced a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs to the respondent about four years back the said amount despite repeated demands and finally at the request of the appellant, on 30-3-1998 the respondent issued a cheque in favour of the appellant. The appellant presented the cheque was dishonoured by the bank for the reason " Account closed ". Thereafter , the appellant issued a statutory demand notice and as the respondent failed to pay the amount, a complaint was filed before the magistrate by the appellant. In the complaint, it was alleged that the appellant and his two friends advanced the said sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs the respondent about four years prior to the respondent. The learned Magistrate issued summons to the respondent. The respondent filed a Criminal Revision before the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore, alleging that the complaint was not maintainable as the amount advanced by the appellant to him was about four years prior to the date of issue of the cheque, and in view of the 'Explanation' appended to S. 138 of the Act, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability as against the respondent. The Addl. Sessions Judge accepted this plea and held that even on the basis of the averments in the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant, the alleged borrowing was four years prior to the issuance of the cheque and hence that debt was not legally enforceable in view of the bar of limitation and, therefore, the Magistrate was in error in taking cognizance of the alleged offence under S. 138 of the Act. As a result, the Addl. Sessions Judge quashed the entire proceedings and aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Karnataka but the learned single Judge upheld the view of the Addl. Sessions Judge. The appeal has now come up before us.
(3.)We heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel contended that it was incorrect on the part of the Sessions Judge to hold that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the respondent. He also contended that when a cheque is issued, under S. 118 of the Act, it has to be presumed that it was drawn for consideration. It was further contended that even though the appellant and his friends advanced the loan about four years back, the respondent had acknowledged this liability in his balance sheet and that even for the purpose of a civil suit, such debt or liability is not barred by limitation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.