Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act

The section 138 cheque-bounce clock: every deadline, in the Act's own words

By Abhijeet, founder, Pundora · Published 3 October 2026

A cheque-bounce complaint fails more often on its dates than on its merits. Here is the clock as the Act states it, the judgments that settle how it runs, and a worked List of Dates on a fictional matter.

The clock, in four deadlines

Each deadline starts from a different event, and three of them turn on receipt, not dispatch. That is where most mistakes live.

The Act's own words

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as Pundora holds it from India Code (footnote markers omitted):

"Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless—
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, debt of other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability."Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, s. 138, proviso (India Code; source below).

"(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138: Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period;"Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, s. 142(1)(b) (India Code).

Where the complaint is filed is settled by s. 142(2), inserted in 2015: the court within whose jurisdiction sits the branch where the payee maintains the account (if the cheque was delivered for collection through an account), or the drawee bank's branch where the drawer maintains the account (if presented otherwise). The 2015 insertion answered the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling discussed below.

Where the clock is missed

• Counting the notice from the dishonour, not from the memo. The 30 days run from the payee's receipt of the bank's information. Keep the return memo and the date it reached you; that date is the start of the clock and it is the one courts ask for.
• Filing on the sixteenth day. The complaint can be filed only after the 15 days from the drawer's receipt have expired unpaid. A complaint filed within those 15 days is premature, and the Supreme Court has held it cannot be cured by waiting (below).
• Losing a month to the post. The 15 days run from the drawer's receipt of the notice. A notice sent to the correct address by post is presumed served under the General Clauses Act unless the drawer proves otherwise (below), so the dispatch proof matters as much as the notice.
• Letting the one month run out while negotiating. The month for the complaint starts the day after the 15 days end, whether or not the drawer is promising to pay. A fresh presentation and a fresh notice can start a new clock (below), but only if the cheque is still within its validity.
• Filing in the wrong court. Since 2015, s. 142(2) fixes the place; a complaint filed where the notice was sent from, or where the cheque was handed over, is in the wrong court.

What a court holiday does to the clock

The 30 days, the 15 days and the one month are periods fixed by the Act, and they run through holidays. What a holiday changes is the last day. Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as Pundora holds it from India Code, reads: "Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court re-opens." A complaint under section 138 is governed by the Act's own one month, and how far section 4 reaches it is a question the courts, not this page, answer; what is certain is that the last day has to be known, and whether the court sits on it. That is why a matter in Pundora reads its own court's calendar: the Deadlines tab shows the last day and whether the court sits on it, and the previous-evening WhatsApp digest says when tomorrow is a holiday. A holiday in the Delhi courts is not a holiday in Gurugram: see the 27 calendars.

The judgments that settle the hard points

Each of these is held in Pundora's corpus; the passages are quoted from the text as held, and the citations are the neutral citation and the Supreme Court Reports reference as the corpus records them.

Successive presentations and a fresh notice start a fresh clock — MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan, 2012 INSC 424; (2012) 9 SCR 165 (26 September 2012)

"… we need only mention that the limitation which Sadanandan Bhadran's case (supra) reads into that provision does not appear to us to arise. We say so because while a complaint based on a default and notice to pay must be filed within a period of one month from the date the cause of action accrues … there is no reason why a person who has issued a cheque which is dishonoured and who fails to make payment despite statutory notice served upon him should be immune to prosecution simply because the holder of the cheque has not rushed to the court with a complaint based on such default …"The 2012 decision's words, as set out in the Court's follow-on judgment in the same matter, MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan, 2013 INSC 604; (2013) 10 SCR 81 (10 September 2013), from its text as held in Pundora's corpus (passages 8 and 10).

A payee may present the cheque again within its validity and, on a fresh dishonour and a fresh notice, file on that cause of action; the earlier view in Sadanandan Bhadran that a complaint could rest only on the first dishonour was departed from.

A complaint filed within the drawer's 15 days is premature — Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey, 2014 INSC 650; (2014) 12 SCR 26 (19 September 2014)

"… if the complaint case is filed before expiry of 15 days as provided in clause (c) to the proviso of Section 138, then cognizance of the offence cannot be taken in view of the provision in clause (b) of Section 142 and consequentially the complaint was liable to be quashed."The Court recording the Orissa High Court's view, which it went on to approve; from the judgment's text as held (passage 22).

The Court held that no cognizance can be taken of such a complaint, and that the defect is not cured by the 15 days running out while the complaint is pending; the payee may file afresh within the one month that follows, and the Court addressed the position of complaints already pending.

A notice sent by post to the correct address is presumed served — C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, 2007 INSC 628; (2007) 7 SCR 326 (18 May 2007)

"… in a case where the sender has dispatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, the principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 … could profitably be imported in such a case. It was held that in this situation service of notice is deemed to have been effected on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service."From the judgment's text as held (passage 15), restating the earlier Bhaskaran view the Court affirmed.

Where the complaint lies — Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 INSC 514; (2014) 11 SCR 921 (1 August 2014), and the 2015 amendment

"… with the passage of two decades the manipulative abuse of territorial jurisdiction has become a recurring and piquant factor. The liberal approach preferred in Bhaskaran now calls for a stricter interpretation of the statute, precisely because of its misemployment so far as choice of place of suing is concerned."From the judgment's text as held (passage 17).

The Court confined the complaint to the court where the drawee bank is situated. Parliament then inserted s. 142(2) by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, fixing the place at the payee's bank branch (for a cheque delivered for collection through an account) or the drawee branch (otherwise). The judgment is still cited for its history of the provision; the place of filing today is governed by s. 142(2).

Summary trial and the court's directions — In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, 2021 INSC 257; (2021) 4 SCR 257 (Constitution Bench, 16 April 2021)

The Constitution Bench's directions on how section 138 cases are to be tried (summary trial as the rule, service of summons, the treatment of multiple complaints on one transaction) are the framework every trial court applies; the judgment is held in full in Pundora's corpus and is the one to read for procedure rather than for the clock.

A worked List of Dates, on a fictional matter

Pundora's sample matter, Rakesh Sharma v. Mehta Trading Co., is invented for demonstration; the parties, the cheque and the dates correspond to nothing real. Its List of Dates, in the Delhi High Court's format, reads like this:

Download the sample as Pundora exports it: List of Dates (.docx, Delhi High Court format). A4, Times New Roman 14 in 1.5 spacing, margins of 4 cm and 2 cm, a centred page number, named after the matter. Fictional throughout.

In Pundora the chronology above is built from the uploaded file, each line linked to the page it came from, every date confirmed by the advocate before it reaches the calendar; the four deadlines are suggested from the dates and shown with their working; and the matter follows the Delhi district courts' holiday calendar.

Every fact on this page carries its source. If one is wrong, write to contact@pundora.in and it will be corrected and dated.