SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1286

C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR
Upasana Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sanjay Gupta, Mansoor Ali, Bilal Mansoor, K.P. Singh Chohan.
For the Respondents: Saif Zia, Ejaz Maqbool.

Judgement Key Points

How to determine validity of a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the notice is omnibus and does not demand the cheque amount separately? What is the consequence of including separate demands for interest, damages, and other charges in a Section 138 demand notice in relation to its validity? What is the binding legal standard for reading a demand notice as a whole under Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal and How it affects quashing of summoning orders?

How to determine validity of a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the notice is omnibus and does not demand the cheque amount separately?

What is the consequence of including separate demands for interest, damages, and other charges in a Section 138 demand notice in relation to its validity?

What is the binding legal standard for reading a demand notice as a whole under Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal and How it affects quashing of summoning orders?


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 Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top