VISHALAKSHI BHAT v. SUNDER RAJAN M.K.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 115
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Indian Contract Act, 1872 ss. 25, 25(3)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ss. 118(a), 138, 139, 143A
- Limitation Act, 1963 ss. 5, 18
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Judgment
petitioner–defendant that the issuance of a cheque in relation to a time-barred debt does not revive the expired period of limitation for the purpose of a suit for the recovery of amounts allegedly received by the defendant for the plaintiff’s use.
#2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a direction to the defendant to pay a sum of INR 48,00,000 along with interest at 12% per annum, amounting to INR 82,56,000, among other reliefs.
#3. In the plaint, the plaintiff averred that the defendant had solicited him to invest in a scheme called the “Employee Benefit Scheme.” Pursuant to this solicitation, the plaintiff transferred an - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7450 CRP No. 102 of 2024 amount of ₹48,00,000 the defendant’s bank account. Subsequently, the plaintiff, upon receiving reliable information, learned that the defendant had solicited money from several other individuals under the pretext of investing in a knowingly fraudulent scheme, thereby cheating them.
#4. The plaintiff lodged a criminal complaint against the defendant for offences punishable under Sections 34, 120B, 409, 418, 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging criminal breach of trust. After an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet for offences related to criminal breach of trust. Thereafter, in April 2019, the defendant approached the plaintiff, requesting him to withdraw the criminal complaint and assuring him that she would repay the amount along with interest. In furtherance of this assurance, the defendant issued a cheque dated 13.06.2019 for INR 50,00,000/-
#5. The defendant entered an appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the alleged amount was paid by the plaintiff in October 2015. The issuance of the cheque dated
13.06.2019, she argued, would not bring the suit within the limitation period, as the defendant had not acknowledged the time- barred debt as required under Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, the present suit, filed after the expiration of three years from the date of the cause of action, is not maintainable under Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7450 CRP No. 102 of 2024 In support, reliance is placed on the following: Sasseriyil Joseph v. Devassia - MANU /KE / 0674 /2000 i. ii. Mortulo Ramchandra Gad and Ors. v. John Pinto and Ors. - MANU iii. iv. v.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Indian Contract Act, 1872 — ss. 25, 25(3); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — ss. 118(a), 138, 139, 143A; Limitation Act, 1963 — ss. 5, 18; Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 19 Feb 2025. The bench was HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, SHREYAS COLONY, RING ROAD.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.