SIVARAMAN P. V. Vs. SHAJAN ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a case wherein a suit is filed for the realisation of the amount borrowed, when the cheque subsequently issued in discharge of the liability stands dishonoured, does the period of limitation commence from the date on which the amount was borrowed or from the date on which the cheque was issued?

(2.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur in OS No.408/2002 followed by those of the IV Additional District Judge, Thrissur in AS No.40/2011, the defendant in the suit has filed Rs. No.1080/2014. Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur in OS No.409/2002 followed by those of the IV Additional District Judge, Thrissur in AS No.38/2011, the defendant in the suit has filed Rs. No.1130/2014. Even though the defendant in both the suits is the same, the plaintiff in OS No.408/2002 is the husband of the plaintiff in OS No.409/200 Both the suits were jointly tried.

(3.) The case of the respondents is that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 each from them. Thereafter, the plaintiffs demanded the said amount from the defendant. On such demand, the defendant issued Ext.A20 cheque as well as Ext.A1 cheque to the said plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs presented the said cheques for payment, it returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, demand notices were issued within the statutory period covered by Sec. 138(b) of the NI Act. Reply notices were issued denying the claim forwarded in the demand notices.