Dismissed

Ketan F. Karani and Anr. v. M/S Orbit Impex and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2024WP/3278/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the confirmation of process issuance in a Section 138 NI Act case, upholding the lower court's timeline calculation regarding the limitation period for filing the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the confirmation of process issuance under Section 138 was rejected and the judgment below was affirmed.

Ketan F. Karani and Anr. Vs M/S Orbit Impex and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2024.04.15 Chitra Sonawane. WP-3278-2018.doc 10:38:18 +0530

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Cri.Writ Petition No.3278 of 2018

¶4

1. Ketan F. Karani
Age 57 Years, Managing Director
of M/s. Tirupati Enterprises (India)
Limited, 14, Sagar Samruddhi,
Plot No.1,2,3 Takai, Post Sajgaon,
Tal.Khalapur, Maharashtra 410203.

¶5

2. M/s Tirupati Industries (India) Ltd.
14 Sagar Samruddhi, Plot No.1,2,3 Takai,
Post Sajgaon, Tal.Khalapur)
Maharashtra 410203

¶6

... Petitioners.

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. M/s Orbit Impex,
a registered partnership firm, having
its office at 7th floor, Mehta Mahal,
15th Mathew Road, Opera House,
Mumbai-400 004.

¶9

2. The State of Maharashtra
through the Public Prosecutor,
A.S. High Court, Mumbai 400 023. … Respondents.

¶10

Mr Manish Bohra i/by Vivek Phadke for petitioners.
Mr Paras N. Vira for respondent No.1.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP for respondent No.2/State.

¶11

 Coram : R. N. Laddha, J.
Date : 12 April 2024.

¶12

 Page No. 1 of 4

¶13

 ____________________________________________
12 April 2024

¶14

Chitra Sonawane. WP-3278-2018.doc

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

In the present writ petition, the petitioners (original
accused) challenge the judgment and order passed on 25 June
2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in
Criminal Revision Application No.806 of 2017. This order
confirmed the order of issue process under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’), by
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaon,
Mumbai, in CC No.257/SS/2017 on 20 June 2017, against the
petitioners.

¶17

2.Mr Manish Bohra, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners, submits that the accused received a statutory
notice on 6 January 2017, and the 15-day period elapsed on
21 January 2017. Subsequently, the 30-day period, as
contemplated under Section 142(b) of the NI Act, lapsed on
21 February 2017. However, the complaint was filed on 22
February 2017, which is not tenable as it was filed after the
stipulated time. According to the learned Counsel, the
Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to take cognizance under
Section 138 of the NI Act without an application under
Section 142(1)(b) to condone the delay in filing the
complaint. Regrettably, the Magistrate failed to acknowledge

¶18

 Page No. 2 of 4
 ____________________________________________
12 April 2024

¶19

Chitra Sonawane. WP-3278-2018.doc

¶20

that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period and
incorrectly passed an order for process issuance without
jurisdiction.

¶21

3.On the contrary, Mr Paras Vira, the learned Counsel for
respondent No.1/complainant, submits that the accused were
granted 15 days time to pay the cheque amount, which
expired on 21 January 2017. The cause of action arose on the
subsequent day, 22 January 2017, the starting date, which is
required to be excluded for calculating a month’s period.
Therefore, the trial Court’s decision to take cognizance on 22
February 2017 falls within the statutory one month
timeframe.

¶22

4.According to Section 138(c) of the NI Act, the cause of
action arises when the cheque drawer fails to make payment
within 15 days of receiving notice. In the present case, the
accused received the statutory notice on 6 January 2017, and
had 15 days until 21 January 2017. Consequently, the cause
of action for filing the complaint would arise from 22 January
2017. It is a settled position in law, as highlighted in a case of
Econ Antri Limited Vs. Rom Industries Ltd. & Anr.1, that
when calculating one month prescribed under Section 142(b)

¶23

1 2013(5)Bom.C.R.481.

¶24

 Page No. 3 of 4

¶25

 ____________________________________________
12 April 2024

¶26

Chitra Sonawane. WP-3278-2018.doc

¶27

of the NI Act, the day on which the cause of action arose
should be excluded. Therefore, 22 January 2017, is to be
excluded when counting the one month period. As a result,
the complaint filed on 22 February 2017, falls within the
permissible timeframe.

¶28

5.In light of the above, the present petition stands
dismissed.

¶29

 [R. N. Laddha, J.]

¶30

 Page No. 4 of 4

¶31

 ____________________________________________
12 April 2024

Ketan F. Karani and Anr. v. M/S Orbit Impex and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ketan F. Karani and Anr. v. M/S Orbit Impex and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Mukesh Vagatlal Siyal Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Mr. Firoz Buddu Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Smt. Urmila W/O. Rameshchandra Chall Vs Akruli Satya Co-Op. Housing Society Limited

Smt.Leela Vishwanath Oundhe Vs Mr.Bhaskar Murgyappa Kaulapure (Deceased Thru Lrs) Smt.Kamal Bhaskar Kaulapure

Vikram @ Pappu Rupchand Tasambad vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhavin Chhotalal Sheth Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.