H.
S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. M/s MSN Woodtech
In a judgment delivered
in September 2025, the Supreme Court addressed a case involving
cheque-dishonour complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI
Act). The issue before the Court was whether a complaint filed after the 30-day
limitation period under Section 142(b) of the NI Act can be accepted without a
formal condonation of delay.
KEY DECISION BY
THE SUPREME COURT
The Court held:
30-Day Limit is Binding
The time limit of 30 days
under Section 142(b) for filing a complaint after a cheque is dishonoured is
not discretionary. It is mandatory, unless a delay is formally condoned with
valid reasons.
Condonation of
Delay Must Be Filed With the Complaint
If the complaint is
lodged after the 30 days, the complainant must accompany it with an application
seeking condonation of the delay. The reasons must be lucid, documented, and
substantive.
Judicial
Examination Essential
Courts cannot simply
overlook the fact of delay or presume a condonation. It is the court’s duty to
independently and judicially examine whether the reasons for the delay are
adequate before proceeding to take cognizance or issue summons.
Failure to Comply Leads
to Quashing
In this case, the
complaint was filed on the 35th day—five days beyond the statutory deadline. No
condonation application was filed, and no court recorded any justification for
the delay. Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the complaint.
IMPLICATIONS OF
THIS JUDGMENT
1.
Filing
a complaint beyond the 30-day period without a condonation application will
render the complaint liable to be dismissed outright.
2.
The
courts are now under obligation to ensure that any delayed complaint is
accompanied by an application for condonation and that the delay is carefully
considered before issuing summons.
3.
Complainants
can no longer rely on doctrine of laches, presumption, or informal delay
management; the process must strictly follow the NI Act’s prescription.
CONCLUDING
THOUGHTS
This
decision marks a firm declaration by the Supreme Court that procedural
timelines under law—especially for cheque dishonour complaints—cannot be
treated lightly. The ruling underscores:
1)
The absolute nature of the 30-day period
under Section 142(b) unless a formal, justified condonation is sought and
granted.
2)
The responsibility on complainants and
their legal advisors to be prompt and thorough.
3)
That courts must not gloss over delays or
assume condonation but must follow the statutory mandate.
4)
For anyone dealing with a cheque dishonour
case, promptness, documentation, and precision are no longer optional—they’re
essential.
