The Supreme Court has over-ruled its previous judgements in order provide relief to the holders of bounced cheques under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act
It has been observed lately that the trend of reversing important judicial decisions has been on a rise i.e. a decision is reversed due to a difference in the opinion of the different benches presiding over matters pertaining to the same question of law and sharing the same background as to the facts of the case. Such a practise is being adopted more often by the Supreme Court, which being the highest court of law is regarded as the epitome for all legal issues. The practise of reversing a decision is considered appropriate and necessary only in the wake of adopting a dynamic approach towards law instigated by a constant change in the business dynamics and influenced by external factors.
To cite a recent example of such practise, reference shall be made to the case of Bhatia International Vs Bulk Trading SA1 (Bhatia International), the decision of the Supreme Court by virtue of which it was held that Part I of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act), dealing with the power of a court to grant interim relief, could be applied to arbitration disputes with a foreign seat unless the parties specifically opted out of such an arrangement, was overruled by a subsequent decision of the court in Bharat Aluminium Co Vs Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc2. In this landmark judgment, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held that Part I of the Arbitration Act will have no effect on international commercial arbitration held outside India unless it has been agreed that such awards shall be enforceable in India in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act. Thus, in case of an international commercial arbitration, no application for interim relief will be maintainable as the application of Part I of the Arbitration Act is limited only to arbitrations taking place within India.
Such inconsistency should be discouraged in the course of imparting justice on substantial matters of law. Moreover, in a country where high reliance is placed on judicial precedents both by the citizens as well as the courts, difference in the opinion will prejudicially affect the rights of the parties directly involved, thus, consequentially acting to the detriment of the society and causing a significant decline in the faith held by the citizens on our judicial system.
SC over-rules prior decision: Assigns true intent to Section 138 of NI Act
The Supreme Court while deciding the scope of Section 138\142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’), has over-ruled its previous decision thus importing true character to the intent of the legislature. Section 138 aims to promote better compliances in terms of honouring cheques and discharging liabilities by imposing a penalty for any default committed in this respect. It is a medium of speedy remedy provided for the protection of the holder/payee of the cheque, where the debtor seeks to discharge his obligation through cheque but does not intend to honour it.
However, the current practice adopted by the courts and the time spent to arrive at a final decision has inadvertently failed to meet the intent of the Legislature behind this provision and made it worthless in the statute books. The case to be dealt with subsequently is an apt example depicting the inability of the courts to provide speedy remedy as in this case, the aggrieved party had to strive for a period of ten years (approximately) before they could be accorded relief.
As per the proviso to the Section, there are three essential pre-requisites which are to be fulfilled for the application of this Section:
Further Section 142 of the NI Act requires the complaint to be made within one month of the date on which the “cause of action” arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 i.e. failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice by the holder/payee.
So, an essential question which arose for determination is when does a “cause of action” arise and whether a payee/holder can in due course initiate proceedings under Section 138 after a subsequent dishonour of cheque by the drawer if he has not initiated any action on earlier cause of action?
These questions have been a matter of debate in various rulings. The matter of Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar3(hereinafter referred to as ‘Sadanandan’s case’), decided by the apex court was a landmark judgment before it was over-ruled in Msr Leathers Vs Palaniappan and Anr.4(‘Msr Leathers’) by the Supreme Court itself.
The facts of both the cases being essentially the same are that the holder/payee had served notice under clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 on the first default by the drawer, yet did not file a complaint despite failure of the accused to make payment of the amount covered by the cheques, on assurance being given by the drawer that the cheques will be honoured on being presented again. However, even on subsequent presentation of the cheque for encashment by the holder/payee, the cheques were dishonoured again for want of insufficient funds. Notice was served by the payee and on failure of the drawer to pay the money; complaint was filed under Section 138.
In Sadanandan’s case5, the scope of Section 138\142 of the NI Act was given a limited meaning wherein the Supreme Court held that the “cause of action” under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 can arise only once and failure of the aggrieved holder/payee of the dishonoured cheque to file a complaint within 30 days of the first cause of action shall be treated as an absolution of his right. The apex court in this case adjudged that the subsequent presentation of cheques and the default committed thereby shall hold no relevance despite the fulfilment of all the preconditions stipulated for an offence to take place under Section 138 of the NI Act.
However, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Msr Leathers6 has brought out the essence of Section 138 of the NI Act, totally in sync with the intent of the legislature and the very object of Section 138, i.e. to impart credibility to negotiable instruments in business transactions and uphold the efficacy of and faith in the banking system. In the instant case, the question before the Supreme Court was similar to that in Sadanandan’s case (supra). The court negated its earlier ruling, observing the following:
“There is in our opinion no real or qualitative difference between a case where default is committed and prosecution immediately launched and another where the prosecution is deferred till the cheque presented again gets dishonoured for the second or successive time.” (emphasis supplied)
Therefore, based on the above observations, the Supreme Court upheld that the prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of the cheque is also permissible so long as the same satisfies the requirements stipulated in the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The landmark judgments of the Supreme Court over-ruling its previous decisions are inevitable in as much they have given effect to the true intention of the legislature by adopting a fair and just approach and fulfilling the purpose for which the statutes have been enacted that is to protect the interests of different classes of people. However, the frequent negation of earlier judgments is not a healthy approach and should be discouraged unless a substantial question of law is involved or it is mandatory to do so in the interests of promoting justice and equity.
1 (2002) 4 SCC 105
3 (1998) 6 SCC 514