Negotiable instruments

Delay Condonation for Section 138 Complaints (Section 142(b)): Grounds & Draft

By Advocate Sainath Panjagari · Published 10 September 2026 · 14 min read

Introduction

A cheque bounce complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must ordinarily be filed within one month of the cause of action. That window is short. Payees in Hyderabad and across India often miss it because notice service is disputed, papers are incomplete, the drawer keeps promising payment, or the complainant is unwell.

Delay condonation for Section 138 complaints is not automatic. The proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act lets the Magistrate take cognizance after the prescribed period only if the complainant first shows sufficient cause. The Supreme Court has, in 2025 and 2026, treated this timeline as mandatory: file a proper condonation application, get a reasoned order, and only then proceed to cognizance and summons.

This article explains when limitation starts, what grounds usually work, how to draft and file the application in Hyderabad Magistrate courts, and the mistakes that get belated complaints quashed.

What Section 142(b) Actually Controls

Section 138 creates the offence. Section 142 controls when a court may take cognizance.

After the 2015 amendment, the provision is numbered Section 142(1)(b). Lawyers still call it Section 142(b). The rule is the same: the written complaint must be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138.

The same clause has a proviso. The court may take cognizance after that period if the complainant satisfies it that there was sufficient cause for not filing in time. That is the only statutory route. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the old Section 473 CrPC are not the correct headings for this delay. The Supreme Court in Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jayprakash M. Shah (2008) 13 SCC 689 treated the NI Act proviso as a special, substantive power.

Two recent rulings now govern practice:

H.S. Oberoi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. MSN Woodtech (Supreme Court, 9 September 2025): the one-month limit is mandatory. There is no automatic or presumed condonation. A written application disclosing reasons should accompany the belated complaint, and the court must independently record why condonation is justified. A complaint filed beyond the statutory period without that process was quashed.
S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya, 2026 INSC 27 (6 January 2026): satisfaction on sufficient cause, and the order condoning delay, must precede cognizance. Taking cognizance first and condoning two days of delay years later is not a curable irregularity. The complaint was quashed.

Do not treat a two-day delay as too small to matter. After Nagesh, sequence is as important as the length of delay.

When Does the One-Month Clock Start?

Do not count from the date the cheque bounced. Count from the cause of action.

Typical sequence:

Cheque is presented within its validity period and is returned unpaid.
Payee issues a written demand notice within 30 days of receiving the bank’s return information.
Drawer has 15 days from receipt of that notice to pay.
If payment is not made, the cause of action arises on expiry of those 15 days.
The complaint must then be filed within one month of that date.

Courts compute the one-month period by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose (Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 1; later affirmed in Econ Antri Ltd. v. Rom Industries Ltd.). In day-to-day practice this window is often described as about 30 days, but the statute uses “one month.” Calculate dates on a calendar. Do not guess.

Notice service matters. If the notice is correctly addressed and sent by registered post, courts may presume service after a reasonable period even if the cover comes back unclaimed (C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555). Wrong address, incomplete name, or only WhatsApp without proof of the statutory notice will scramble both limitation and the offence itself.

A complaint filed before the 15-day payment period ends is premature, not delayed. That is a different defect (Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey (2014) 10 SCC 713). The remedy there is usually a fresh complaint after the cause of action accrues, not a condonation application on the premature petition.

Limitation timeline at a glance

Clock	What to watch
Cheque presentation	Within validity / six months, whichever is earlier (as applicable on the instrument).
Demand notice	Within 30 days of receiving bank information that the cheque was unpaid.
Time to pay	15 days from actual or deemed receipt of the demand notice.
Cause of action	The day after those 15 days expire without payment.
Complaint window	One month from the cause-of-action date, excluding that date (Saketh / Econ Antri).
If late	Written application under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b), decided before cognizance.

Hyderabad and Telangana: Where the Application Is Filed

Jurisdiction for the Section 138 complaint follows Section 142(2) of the NI Act, not the old “place where the cheque was drawn” rule.

If the cheque is an account-payee cheque collected through the payee’s bank, the court of the payee’s home branch ordinarily has jurisdiction (Bridgestone India (2016) 2 SCC 75; Jai Balaji Industries v. HEG Ltd., 2025 INSC 1362).
Over-the-counter presentation is treated differently and may lie at the drawee-branch court.

In Hyderabad / Greater Hyderabad, complaints typically go to:

Forum	Typical use
MM / Magistrate, Nampally (Hyderabad MSJ / Manoranjan Complex)	City-core collecting-bank branches mapped to Hyderabad city courts.
Cyberabad Magistrate courts	Cyberabad police / bank-branch belt.
Rachakonda Magistrate courts	Rachakonda belt.
Sessions Court (revision)	Challenge to condonation / cognizance / process orders.
Telangana High Court — Section 528 BNSS	Quash or inherent jurisdiction in a clear limitation defect. Exceptional, not the first step.

Map the payee bank branch to the current eCourts / Metropolitan Sessions Judge territorial chart before filing. That chart changes. Treat the exact court as a point to verify on the filing date.

If condonation is refused, or cognizance is taken without it, the accused may seek revision before the Sessions Court or invoke the Telangana High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Those are exceptional remedies, not a substitute for getting the first filing right.

What “Sufficient Cause” Usually Means

“Sufficient cause” is fact-specific. The court looks for an honest explanation covering every day of delay, supported by documents. A liberal approach to short, bona fide delay is possible. Casual, contradictory, or afterthought explanations fail.

Grounds that often get a fair hearing when properly proved

Serious illness of the complainant or the person who had to sign and file, supported by contemporaneous medical records.
Death in the immediate family and the time reasonably spent on last rites and papers.
Delay in obtaining postal remarks, tracking, or proof of notice service, followed promptly by filing (Birendra Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, Supreme Court, 8 May 2019 — delay linked to postal enquiries and a second notice was treated as explained).
Drawer’s written or recorded assurances of payment that reasonably held back filing, provided you stop relying on them once it is clear payment will not come.
Wrong court filing in good faith, followed by prompt presentation in the correct court. This is not automatic exclusion of time; plead the dates and the bona fides.
Company or firm authorisation delay, board resolution, or change of authorised signatory — only if the paper trail is dated and consistent.
Natural calamity, hospitalisation, or other events outside the complainant’s control.

Grounds that routinely fail

“I was busy” or “advocate was out of station” with no diary, vakalat, or contemporaneous proof.
Calculating limitation from the bounce memo instead of from expiry of the 15-day notice period, then calling the gap “small.”
Stating in the complaint that it is “within time” when the dates show it is not. Nagesh treated that misstatement as contributing to the defect.
Filing first, taking summons, and moving condonation years later.
Vague “settlement talks” with no emails, letters, or bank correspondence.
A medical certificate issued after the application is drafted, covering a period that does not match the delay.

Length of delay is not the only test. Two days without an application can fail. Several weeks with a documented, honest explanation can succeed. There is no fixed outer cap in the proviso, but longer delay needs a stronger, day-wise story.

Step-by-Step: How to Seek Condonation

Recalculate limitation before you draft. List: date of bounce information, date of demand notice, mode of service, date of deemed or actual receipt, 15th day, date cause of action arose, last date for a timely complaint, and actual date of presentation. Annex the calendar working.
Do not hide the delay. If the complaint is late, say so in the complaint and in a separate interlocutory application. Do not plead “filed within time” to avoid scrutiny.
File the condonation application with the complaint. After Oberoi (2025), the safe practice is a written application plus supporting affidavit filed along with the Section 138 complaint, list of documents, and process fee. Mention the exact number of days of delay.
Attach proof of the cause. Medical records, postal track reports, returned covers, emails of settlement talks, board resolution, travel tickets, hospital discharge summary — whatever matches the ground. Unverified assertions are weak.
Ask the court to condone first, then take cognizance. The prayer should request condonation under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) and only thereafter cognizance and process. That tracks Nagesh (2026).
Be ready for a short inquiry. Some Magistrates decide the application on the affidavit at the scrutiny / taking-on-file stage. Others issue notice to the proposed accused before condoning. High Court practice on whether the accused must be heard before condonation is not uniform. Flag this for the advocate appearing in that specific court. Do not assume silence equals condonation.
Obtain a speaking order. Ask for an order that records: (a) the delay in days, (b) the cause accepted, and (c) that delay is condoned before cognizance. A one-line “taken on file” order on a time-barred complaint is now a quash risk.

Documents Checklist for the Application

Section 138 complaint with correct cause-of-action dates
Separate application under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b)
Affidavit of the complainant (or authorised person with personal knowledge)
Cheque, deposit slip, and bank return memo
Demand notice, postal receipt, tracking, acknowledgment, or returned cover
Calculation sheet of limitation
Proof of sufficient cause (medical / postal / correspondence / authorisation)
Vakalatnama, ID, and, for companies, board resolution / letter of authority
List of witnesses and documents as required by local Magistrate practice
Process memo and accused address with phone / email if known (useful under Telangana electronic process practice)

Sample Draft: Application for Condonation of Delay

Use this as a working skeleton. Fill exact dates, days of delay, and annexures. Do not file it unchanged.

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE / JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS AT ______________ (Nampally / Cyberabad / Rachakonda, as applicable) C.C. / S.T.C.(NI) / P.C.R. No. ______ of 20__ [Name of Complainant] …Complainant Versus [Name of Accused] …Accused APPLICATION UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 142(1)(b) OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE SAID ACT The Complainant most respectfully submits as follows: 1. The Complainant has today presented a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of Cheque No. ________ dated ________ for Rs. ________ drawn by the Accused on ________ Bank, ________ Branch, which was returned unpaid on ________ for the reason ________. 2. Statutory demand notice dated ________ was issued to the Accused on ________ by registered post / speed post, Acknowledgment Due, to the last known address. Service / deemed service was on ________. The fifteen-day period for payment expired on ________. The cause of action therefore arose on ________. 3. The prescribed period of one month for presenting the complaint, computed by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose, expired on ________. The present complaint is being presented on ________. There is a delay of ______ days. 4. The delay was neither wilful nor intended to gain any unfair advantage. Sufficient cause exists for the reasons stated below: [Set out numbered, dated facts — illness / postal enquiry / settlement correspondence / authorisation delay / other specific cause. Avoid vague language.] 5. The Complainant bona fide believed that [brief reason]. Immediately on [event that ended the cause], the Complainant gathered documents and approached counsel, and has presented this complaint without further default. 6. The Complainant has not stated that the complaint is within time. The delay is placed on record at the first instance. The accompanying affidavit and Annexures ___ to ___ support the cause. 7. If the delay is not condoned, the Complainant will suffer grave prejudice and the Accused will escape scrutiny of a legally enforceable debt evidenced by the dishonoured cheque. Condonation will not take away any defence available to the Accused on merits. PRAYER It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: (a) condone the delay of ______ days in presenting the accompanying complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in exercise of power under the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of the said Act; (b) thereafter take cognizance of the offence and issue process to the Accused; and (c) pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice. Place: Hyderabad / ________ Date: ________ Counsel for the Complainant [Name, enrolment no., address, mobile, email] VERIFICATION I, ________, the Complainant, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 7 are true to my personal knowledge and that no part is false. Verified at ________ on ________. Deponent

Attach a short supporting affidavit repeating the dates and cause, and mark every exhibit.

How the Accused Usually Attacks a Belated Complaint

If you are the drawer, do not ignore dates. Check:

Whether the complaint was filed after one month from cause of action.
Whether a condonation application was filed with the complaint.
Whether the Magistrate condoned delay before cognizance and summons.
Whether the complaint falsely said it was in time.
Whether the “sufficient cause” is supported or is an afterthought.
Whether notice was served or deemed served, because a wrong service date shifts the entire clock.

Those defects support an application for discharge / recall of process where locally available, a Sessions revision, or a quash petition before the Telangana High Court under Section 528 BNSS in a clear case. Success is not automatic. Courts still distinguish a documented short delay from a silent, time-barred filing.

Common Mistakes

Counting 30 days from the bounce memo.
Filing before the 15-day notice period ends, then treating it as a delay problem.
No separate application, hoping the Magistrate will “take it on file.”
Cognizance order that never mentions delay.
Contradictory dates across notice, complaint, and affidavit.
Photocopy medical certificate with no treating-doctor particulars.
Waiting for a “full and final” promise that never arrives, then filing months later with no paper trail.
Wrong territorial court, which wastes the remaining limitation.
Using Section 5 of the Limitation Act as the only provision cited.

When to Consult an Advocate

See a cheque-bounce practitioner in Hyderabad before the last date if you can. If the last date has already passed, see one the same week. Recalculation of notice service often changes the delay from “fatal” to “arguable,” or the other way around. Companies and partnership firms also need the correct authorised person on the affidavit. A poorly drafted condonation application is now one of the fastest routes to a quash.

Practical Checklist

Recalculate: bounce info → notice within 30 days → 15 days to pay → cause of action → one month.
Exclude the date cause of action arose when counting the filing month.
If late, say so; do not plead “within time.”
File a separate Section 142(1)(b) application plus affidavit with the complaint.
State delay in exact days and explain each spell of delay.
Annex postal proof, medical records, or settlement emails — match the ground.
Pray for condonation first, cognizance next.
Obtain a speaking order; keep a certified copy.
Confirm Hyderabad court from the current branch-wise territorial chart.
If you are the accused, diary the limitation dates before the first hearing.

Conclusion

Delay condonation for Section 138 complaints is a narrow statutory safety valve, not a routine extension. Calculate the cause of action from the end of the 15-day notice period, file within one month if you can, and if you cannot, place a documented sufficient-cause application on record with the complaint. After Oberoi (2025) and Nagesh (2026), the court must notice the delay, test the reasons, condone first, and only then take cognizance. Payees who hide the delay, and drawers who ignore a silent time-bar, both lose needless cases.

Disclaimer

This article is for general information for readers in India, including Hyderabad and Telangana. It is not legal advice and does not create an advocate–client relationship. Limitation, notice service, and “sufficient cause” turn on documents and dates. Court practice and territorial charts change. Have an advocate verify the latest judgments, the correct Magistrate court, and your calculation before filing or challenging a complaint. Citations and practice points current as of September 2026 should be re-checked against the latest reported order before use in court.

Statutes referred

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 138, 142(1)(b)
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5

Questions

Is delay condonation a right in a Section 138 case?

No. It is a discretionary power. The complainant must satisfy the court of sufficient cause. The court may refuse.

Can the Magistrate condone delay without a written application?

After the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Oberoi Buildtech, do not rely on implied condonation. File a written application with reasons. A belated complaint with no application and no reasoned order is vulnerable to quash.

Must delay be condoned before summons?

Yes, in substance. S. Nagesh (2026 INSC 27) requires the court’s satisfaction and condonation to precede cognizance. Summons issued on a time-barred complaint without that step are at risk.

Will a delay of two or three days always be condoned?

No. Short delay helps if the explanation is honest and documented. It does not replace the application or the speaking order.

Can I use Section 5 of the Limitation Act instead?

That is the wrong primary heading. Use the proviso to Section 142(1)(b). The NI Act is a special statute. Mentioning Section 5 alone has led courts to reject applications. An advocate can add a cautionary alternative prayer if local practice still uses it, but the statutory hook is Section 142.

What if my first complaint was premature?

A complaint filed before the 15-day payment period ends is generally not a valid complaint. Condonation does not cure prematurity. The usual path is a fresh complaint after the cause of action arises, with condonation only if that fresh filing itself is late (Yogendra Pratap Singh).

Can the accused oppose condonation?

Yes, once before the court. Whether the Magistrate must hear the accused before condonation varies in practice and should be verified for the court concerned. After process is issued, limitation remains a ground in revision or quash if the statutory sequence was skipped.

Which Hyderabad court will hear my condonation application?

The same Magistrate court that has Section 142(2) territorial jurisdiction over the complaint — commonly Nampally, Cyberabad, or Rachakonda depending on the collecting-bank branch. Confirm on eCourts before paying process.

Related practice

Cheque bounce and negotiable instruments