Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 31 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2023-09-06 allowed

K. Hymavathi vs The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr

Bench: 2 — A.S. Bopanna, Prashant Kumar Mishra

In Brief

A borrower executed a promissory note in July 2012 for Rs 20 lakh with repayment due by December 2016. In April 2017, he issued a cheque for Rs 10 lakh which bounced. The lender filed cheque-bounce complaints in July 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court quashed the proceedings, holding the debt time-barred. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the limitation period begins from December 2016 (when repayment was due), not July 2012 (when the note was executed). Thus, the cheque and complaint were both filed within the three-year limitation period. The Court emphasized that whether a debt is time-barred is a factual question for trial, not for preliminary quashment, and that the cheque constitutes a valid written promise under contract law even if the underlying debt was time-barred.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Negotiable Instruments Cheque Bounce Criminal Procedure Limitation of Suits Contract Law

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login