KISHANCHAND L THAKUR Vs. NARAYAN L RUPAREL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the point raised in the aforesaid applications is the same, I am disposing of the said applications by this common order. In Criminal Application No. 3057 of 2006 the loan was advanced on 23. 7. 1996 and the cheque was issued more than three years later on 24. 2. 2000. In criminal Application No. 3058 of 2006 loan was advanced on 10. 2. 1996 and the cheque was issued after more than three years later on 5. 2. 2000. In Criminal Application No. 3059 of 2006 loan was given on 26. 5. 1997 and the cheque was issued more than three years later on 29. 7. 2000. From the aforesaid facts, it is obvious that the cheques have been issued more than three years later and the recovery was time barred. In the circumstances, this Court in the case of (Smt. Ashwini Satish Bhat Vs. Shri. Jeevan divakar), reported in 2000 (5) Bom. C. R. 234 (P. B.) has taken a view that the debt beyond limitation is not legally enforceable. Then reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High court in the case of (Dr. K. K. Ramakrishnanvs. Dr. K. K. Parthasaradhy and anr.)2, reported in 2004 Company cases 457 in which Kerala High Court has taken a view that even if a claim is barred by limitation on the date of the drawing of the cheque, on delivery of the cheque to the other person, it becomes a valid consideration for another agreement. This view of the Kerala High Court has also not been accepted by our Court and different view has been taken by the Panaji bench. In the circumstances, I do not find any substance in the aforesaid tions. Hence, leave refused. Consequently, the appeal papers to be filed. Application refused.