Relief for Complainants: Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings

This article highlights the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings by analyzing a significant judgment from the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. A common concern for litigants is the Limitation period for filing the NI Act complaint, especially when postal services fail to provide clarity. Many ask, Can a delay in filing a cheque bounce case be condoned if the tracking report is missing? This case explores What is the impact on NI proceedings when the postal department says a legal notice is “in transit” and emphasizes the importance of legal notice tracking report in NI proceedings. While the Presumption of service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act is a standard legal tool, the Hon’ble Court shows how genuine delays can be excused to ensure justice is not denied.

STAY UPDATED: I will update this page with the latest judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High Court regarding the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings and issues surrounding the Limitation period for filing the NI Act complaint.

Add the Direct Link of the High Court and Supreme Court

YOUTUBE VIDEO: If you are facing challenges with the Limitation period for filing the NI Act complaint or need to understand the Presumption of service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act, professional guidance is essential. Our team can help you understand the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings.

You may schedule an appointment with the advocate to understand your specific query regarding the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings and the importance of legal notice tracking report in NI proceedings. Please use this link to book your slot:

Schedule an Appointment

To help you navigate through the details of the Limitation period for filing the NI Act complaint and the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings, please refer to the following Table of Content.

Relief for Complainants: Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings

1. Bibliographic Details and the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings

The following information summarizes the specific legal details of the case handled by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Understanding these details is the first step in recognizing the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings.

2. Brief Facts: Determining the Limitation period for filing the NI Act complaint

The case revolves around a financial dispute where the Complainant sought legal remedy for a defaulted payment, highlighting the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings when technicalities arise.

2.1 The Loan Transaction and the Dishonour of Cheque

The Petitioner, Sajid Khan, provided a friendly loan of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs to the Respondent in October 2018. While the Respondent paid back Rs. 1.15 Lakhs in January 2019, a cheque for the remaining Rs. 6,00,000/- was issued on 26.07.2019. This cheque was presented twice but suffered a Dishonour both times, specifically on 17.08.2019 and 19.10.2019, due to “insufficient funds”.

2.2 Legal Notice and the Aligarh Tracking Issue

Following the Dishonour, the Complainant sent a Legal Notice dated 15.11.2019 to the Respondent’s Delhi and Aligarh addresses. The Notice at Delhi address was returned unserved on 13.12.2019. However, the notice sent to Aligarh did not show any status in the tracking report for a long duration. The Complainant was informed verbally by the Postal Department that the item might still be “in transit”. This uncertainty directly impacted the Limitation period for filing the NI Act complaint.

3. Timelines of the Case: Importance of legal notice tracking report in NI proceedings

The following chronology illustrates the material facts and the importance of legal notice tracking report in NI proceedings:

• October 2018: Friendly loan of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs advanced to the Respondent.
• 26.07.2019: Cheque of Rs. 6,00,000/- handed over by the Respondent.
• 19.10.2019: Cheque Dishonour for the second time for the same reason.
• 15.11.2019: Legal Notice of Demand sent to correct Delhi and Aligarh addresses.
• 13.12.2019: Notice to Delhi address returned with remarks that no such person resides there.
• 27.02.2020: Complaint filed under Section 138 NI Act with a delay of 27 days.
• 22.05.2025: Learned JMFC dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the complaint.
• 22.12.2025: Hon’ble High Court of Delhi set aside the impugned order and condoned the delay.

4. The Accused’s Perspective: Presumption of service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act

From the perspective of the Accused and the lower court, the strict application of the Presumption of service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act was the primary argument against the Complainant.

4.1 Contentions of the Respondent regarding the 30-day Limitation

The core of the defense relied on the legal presumption that once a notice is posted, it is presumed to be delivered within 30 days. The Accused’s position was that the Limitation period for filing the NI Act complaint had expired because the Complainant failed to act immediately after that 30-day window, leaving the delay unexplained.

4.2 Why the Learned JMFC Dismissed the Complaint

The Learned JMFC initially agreed with this rigid interpretation. The judge observed that “there was a presumption of delivery of the Legal Notice which expired after 30 days.” Consequently, the Learned JMFC concluded there was an unexplained delay of 27 days and dismissed the complaint accordingly.

5. The Complainant’s Perspective: Can a delay in filing a cheque bounce case be condoned if the tracking report is missing?

The Complainant challenged the dismissal by highlighting the practical difficulties faced in verifying delivery, underscoring the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings.

5.1 Petitioner’s Argument: What is the impact on NI proceedings when the postal department says a legal notice is “in transit”

The Complainant argued that he was not negligent but was acting on professional advice and verbal information from the post office. When a complainant is told a notice is “in transit,” they face a dilemma: file too early without proof of service or wait for the report to ensure the service of the Legal Notice.

5.2 Bona Fide Waiting vs. Wilful Negligence

The Petitioner maintained that the delay was for a “bona fide act” to ensure the service of the Legal Notice. He stated: “the delay, if any, was for the bona fide act of the Complainant who waited for reasonable time to ensure the service of Legal Notice.” This addresses the critical question: Can a delay in filing a cheque bounce case be condoned if the tracking report is missing?

6. Analysis by the Hon’ble High Court: Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings

The Hon’ble High Court took a more liberal and justice-oriented view, emphasizing that the law should not “haunt” the diligent litigant.

6.1 Liberal Interpretation of Presumption of service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act

The Hon’ble Court noted that while the Presumption of service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act exists, it is meant to assist the process, not penalize a Complainant who is actually trying to confirm service. The Hon’ble Judge observed: “Here was a case where the Complainant was actually looking for service of Legal Notice, rather than depending upon a presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.”

6.2 Evaluating the 27-day Delay as Genuine and Bona Fide

The Hon’ble High Court found that the explanation for the 27-day delay was “genuine and bona fide”. The Complainant was merely waiting for a confirmed report on the advice of his counsel after being told the item was in transit. This reinforces the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings when the Complainant shows due diligence.

7. Final Operative Portion: Restoration of the Complaint

The Hon’ble High Court concluded that the Complainant should not be rendered remediless. The Judge stated: “The explanation given by the Complainant for delay of 27 days, is genuine and bona fide… the Impugned Order dated 22.05.2025 dismissing the Condonation of delay Application, is hereby set-aside.”

• The delay of 27 days was condoned.
• The complaint was restored to its original number.
• The parties were directed to appear before the Learned JMFC on 23.12.2025.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding the Limitation period for filing the NI Act complaint

For further assistance, you may schedule an appointment with the advocate to discuss the Limitation period for filing the NI Act complaint and the Importance of condonation of delay in section 138 NI act proceedings.

Disclaimer: In compliance with the Bar Council of India guidelines, this article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation for legal services.