Counsel submitted that in view of the above, it is evident that Saketh does not lay down the correct law.
Counsel submitted that there is no justification to exclude the 16th day of the 15 day period under Section 138(c) or the first day of the 30 days period under Section 142(b) as has been wrongly decided in Saketh. It bestows discretion upon the court to accept a complaint after the period of 30 days and to condone the delay.
This would amount to exclusion of the starting date of the period. Counsel pointed out that by Amending Act 55 of 2002, a proviso was added to Section 142(b) of the N. This amendment signifies that prior to this amendment the courts had no discretion to condone the delay or exclude time by resorting to Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Such exclusion has been held to be against the law in SIL Import USA. The statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act 55 of 2002 confirms the legal position that the N. Act being a special statute, the Limitation Act is not applicable to it.
Counsel further submitted that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the N. Counsel submitted that the judgment of this Court on the Arbitration Act is not applicable to this case because Section 43 of the Arbitration Act specifically makes the Limitation Act applicable to arbitrations.
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.