Prem Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yashpal Singh and Anr, (2005) 4 SCC 417

If dishonour of a cheque has once snowballed into a cause of action it is not permissible for a payee to create another cause of action with the same cheque. Limitation started with first notice of demand and second notice made no difference.

K Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, AIR 1999 SC 3762

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears…. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence : (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice…. The more important point to be decided in this case is whether the cause of action has arisen at all as the notice sent by the complainant to the accused was returned as 'unclaimed.'… when a notice is returned by the sender as unclaimed such date would be the commencing date in reckoning the period of 15 days contemplated in Clause (c) to the proviso of Section 138 of the Act….”