Are Cheque Bounce Complaints Filed During Limitation Extension Period Maintainable? SC Refuses To Entertain Gurugram Bar's Clarification Plea

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, refused to entertain the plea filed by Gurugram District Bar Association seeking clarification regarding interpretation of court's orders suspending period of limitation qua the proviso (b) and (c) to the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The matter was heard by bench comprising Chief Justice Lalit and Justice Ravindra Bhat. The matter was accordingly withdrawn by the petitioner.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appeared for the petitioner association. The petitioner Association had sought a clarification stating that the complaint cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 on or after 15th March 2020(after the limitation period was suspended by the Court due to COVID), were maintainable and could not be treated as premature. According to the association, the interpretation of the orders suspending of period of limitation qua the proviso (b) and (c) to the Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act did not mean that complaint cases could not be filed at all during the period of 15.03.2020 till date and such suspension of limitation would not debar filing of all complaints altogether during this period. As per the association, the Judicial Officers at the District Court, Gurugram were interpreting the limitation orders as passed by the Supreme Court from time to time to mean that any complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed from 15.03.2020 till date was considered as pre-mature and was to be either dismissed on the ground of prematurity or should be withdrawn and refiled upon the lifting of the limitation orders.

At the outset, CJI Lalit inquired why the court should issue a general clarification and that the court would deal with matters as and when the matter comes before the court.  

Sr. Adv. Luthra stated that not everyone will approach the court and those who had not taken advantage of the limitation order and were not filed were getting their petitions dismissed. The CJI orally remarked that among the lawyers someone would approach, wherever they wanted to take advantage of the limitation. To this Sr. Adv. Luthra stated that the matter was not pertaining to advantage, rather, the problem was concerning those who had not taken advantage of the limitation.

CJI Lalit remarked that–

"We will decide on basis of background of those facts. We cannot have a normative analysis like this in a matter like this. One can understand at a time when they were completely handicapped, they could not come before us...Once the benefit has been granted, fine-tuning of benefit granted will be decided in individual facts."

Accordingly, the bench asked the petitioner to withdraw the petition. The petition was thus withdrawn. 

On 23.03.2020, the Apex Court for the first time directed the extension of limitation taking suo motu cognisance during the first wave of COVID-19. By way of the said order, the limitation period was extended with effect from 15.03.2020. As the COVID-19 situation improved in the country, on 08.03.2021 the Supreme Court decided to lift the extension with effect from 14.03.2021. In the wake of the second wave, the order for extension dated 23.03.2020 was revived on 27.04.2021. As the second wave subsided, on 25.09.2021, the Apex Court recalled its order dated 27.04.2021 and decided that the extension of limitation period would stand withdrawn with effect from 02.10.2021. In view of the surge in the COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant, the Supreme Court on 10.01.2022 had extended the limitation period for filing cases in courts and tribunals till 28.02.2022. 

CASE TITLE: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation MA 408/2022