SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Upasana Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3786 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9062 of 2023
Decided On : 12-12-2023
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Dishonour of cheque – Summoning order – In demand notice, demand has to be made for ‘cheque amount’ – Notice sans such demand would fall short of legal requirement – A demand in addition to cheque amount in a demand notice by itself would not make it invalid – If in a notice while giving break up of claim cheque amount interest, damages, etc. are separately specified and these additional claims would be severable, such demand would not invalidate notice – In a notice of demand made under N.I. Act demand shall not be omnibus, there must be a clear demand for cheque amount lest notice will be invalid – In present case, demand is omnibus – Impugned order invites interference – Impugned order set aside and as a necessary sequel, summoning order also quashed. (Paras 6 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Appellant assails final order dated 13.04.2023 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRMC No. 2528/2023. As per impugned order, prayer of petitioner for quashing summoning order dated 19.01.2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act 02, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 631164/2016 was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order dated 13.04.2023 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRMC No. 2528/2023 stands set aside and as a necessary sequel, summoning order dated 19.01.2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate shall also stand quashed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant assails the final order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRMC No. 2528/2023. As per the impugned order, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the summoning order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act 02, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 631164/2016 was dismissed.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Paradoxically, learned counsel on both sides relies on the decision of this Court in Suman Sethi vs. Ajay K. Churiwal and Another, (2002) 2 SCC 380. While the appellant contends that in terms of the dictum laid in the said decision, Annexure P-2 notice dated 02.12.2013 is invalid for non-adherence with the mandatory legal requirement under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’), the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in terms of the dictum laid down in the said decision, it is perfectly legal and valid. In view of the rival contentions, we have carefully gone through Annexure P-2 notice bearing in mind the dictum laid down by this Court in the case of Suman Sethi (supra).
5. The relevant paragraph of the decision in Suman Sethi’s case (supra) is extracted for a proper disposal of this case:
“8. It is well settled principle of law that the notice has to be read as a whole. In the notice, demand has to be made for the “said amount” i.e. cheque amount. If no such demand is made the notice no doubt would fall short of its legal requirement. Where in addition to “said amount” there is also a claim by way of interest, cost etc. whether the notice is bad would depend on the language of the notice. If in a notice while giving the break up of the claim the cheque amount, interest, damages etc. are separately specified, other such claims for interest, cost etc. would be superfluous and these additional claims would he severable - and will not invalidate the notice. If, however, in the notice an omnibus demand is made without specifying what was due under the dishonored cheque, notice might well fail to meet the legal requirement and may be regarded as bad.
9. This Court had occasion to deal with Section 138 of the Act in Central Bank of India and Another vs. M/s. Saxons Farms and Others, JT (1999) 8 SC 58 and held that the object of the notice is to give a chance to the drawer of the cheque to rectify his omission. Though in the notice demand for compensation, interest, cost etc. is also made drawer will be absolved from his liability under Section if he makes the payment of the amount covered by the cheque of which he was aware within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice or before complaint is filed.
As therein, some other sums were indicated in addition to the amount of cheque, it was, therefore, not held to be a case where the dispute might be existing in respect of the entire outstanding amount.”
(Emphasis added)
6. A bare perusal of the decision referred (supra) would reveal that a demand in addition to the cheque amount in a demand notice by itself would not make it invalid. In other words, as held therein, in the demand notice, demand has to be made for the ‘cheque amount’ and therefore, notice sans such demand would fall short of legal requirement. At the same time, we will reiterate the position that if in a notice while giving the break up of the claim the cheque amount interest, damages, etc. are separately specified and these additional claims would be severable, such demand would not invalidate the notice. In short, in a notice of demand made under the N.I. Act demand shall not be omnibus, there must be a clear demand for the cheque amount lest notice will be invalid. This law laid down as above has to be applied to decide the validity or otherwise of Annexure P-2-demand notice.
7. The last paragraph in Annexure-P2 notice carries the demand and we will refer to the demand m
AI
Dishonour of cheque – In demand notice, demand has to be made for ‘cheque amount’ – Notice sans such demand would fall short of legal requirement.
A notice under Section 138 must clearly demand the cheque amount; ambiguity can invalidate proceedings, but if the demand is sufficiently clear, the notice is valid.
A valid notice under Section 138 of the NI Act must specify the cheque amount, while additional claims can be made if clearly distinguished.
A demand notice under Section 138 must specify the cheque amount; additional claims do not invalidate it if clearly separated.
A statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must demand only the cheque amount; any excess renders the notice invalid and the complaint non-maintainable.
A notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is valid if it primarily demands the cheque amount, even if it includes additional claims for costs or fees.
Dishonour of cheque – If there is indication in notice of any other amount covered by cheque, it is not invalidated.
Strict compliance with the notice of demand under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act is essential, and any demand in excess of the cheque amount without specifying the reason for the excess dem....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.