Order -

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant presented four cheques with the bank on 21-11-1996 which were issued by the respondents. On 22-11-1996, the said cheques were returned by the bank with an endorsement “not arranged funds for”. On the request made by the respondents, the appellant waited for settlement and did not take any action. Since, the respondents did not make any payment, the appellant sent a notice on 8-1-1997 under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) which was duly received by the respondents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the notice dated 8-1-1997 was not a notice under Section 138(b) of the Act. We have perused the notice dated 8-1-1997 and, in our opinion, it is certainly a notice under Section 138(b) of the Act, since demand for payment has been made by the said notice, though it appears to be time-barred as it appears to have been sent beyond the period mentioned in Section 138(b) of the Act. Hence, we do not accept the submission that it is not a notice under Section 138(b) of the Act. However, the controversy does not end t