NI Act | '30-Day Time Limit For Filing Cheque Dishonour Complaint Mandatory' : Supreme Court Quashes Belated Complaint

The Supreme Court clarified that the 30 days timeline prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) for filing a complaint is mandatory, unless there is a formal application seeking condonation of delay and a judicial order allowing it.

“Once the statute prescribes a mandatory time limit for filing a complaint, there cannot be any deviation from the same except when an application accompanying the complaint is filed seeking condonation disclosing reasons for the delay and even then it is obligatory on the part of the Court to take note of such filing beyond limitation and to consider the reasons disclosed independently and to come to a judicious conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of that case condonation is justified. The same not having been done, the order cannot be sustained.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran quashed a cheque bounce complaint as it was filed beyond the statutory 30-day limitation period i.e., on thirty fifth day.

Neither a delay condonation application was filed along with the complaint nor there was a judicial recording justifying the condonation. Therefore the Court set aside the Delhi High Court's decision which upheld the trial court's decision to issue the summons stating the complaint to be in limitation.

Further, the Court held that there cannot be an automatic or presumed condonation when the complaint was filed beyond the time prescribed under the statute.

The Court emphasized that when a complaint is filed beyond limitation, a delay condonation application with valid reasons is mandatory and must be judicially examined before cognizance is taken.

“Even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that the power under Section 142 of the Act exists for the Court to condone delay, the first requirement is that the Court has to take note of the fact that there is a delay and thereafter it had to go on the point whether the reasons which have been furnished by the complainant are sufficient to condone such delay and only then move on to take cognizance and proceed for issuing of summons.”, the court said.

“In the present case, the same has absolutely not been done. The High Court opining that though there may have been delay but still the Trial Court is well within its power to condone the delay and in terms of Section 142(b) of the Act, filing of an application for condonation of delay is not a statutory mandate, again in our considered view, is erroneous.”, the court added.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the complaint stands quashed.

Cause Title: H. S. OBEROI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD & ORS. Vs. M/S MSN WOODTECH

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 889

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Yugansh Mittal, AOR Mr. Pawan K. Mittal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sudhir Tewatia, Adv. Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Shahid Ali Khan, Adv.