Back
B. R. GAVAI, N. V. ANJARIA
Kaveri Plastics – Appellant
Versus
Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and findings are as follows:
The validity of a legal notice under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hinges on its strict compliance with the requirement that the notice must specify the exact amount for which the cheque was issued. Any discrepancy between the amount mentioned in the notice and the cheque amount renders the notice invalid and lawfully defective (!) (!) (!) .
The phrase ‘said amount of money’ in Proviso (b) refers specifically to the amount of the dishonoured cheque. The notice must demand payment of this precise amount; demanding a different amount, even if it appears to be a typographical error, is considered a fatal defect and invalidates the notice (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The requirement for meticulous and strict compliance with the conditions laid out in Section 138 is emphasized, especially because the offence is of a penal nature. Any technical deviation, including incorrect mention of the cheque amount, can lead to the quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 138 (!) (!) .
The courts have consistently maintained that the demand in the statutory notice must be for the exact amount of the dishonoured cheque. Any deviation, even if unintentional or due to typographical error, is unacceptable and results in the invalidity of the notice (!) (!) (!) (!) .
When there is a discrepancy in the amount demanded in the notice versus the cheque amount, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are rendered legally void. The technical requirement of the notice's correctness cannot be relaxed or overlooked (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal framework mandates a strict, technical interpretation of the statutory provisions related to the issuance of demand notices under Section 138, emphasizing that the exact cheque amount must be explicitly mentioned in the notice for it to be valid (!) (!) (!) .
In conclusion, for a notice to be valid under Proviso (b) to Section 138, it must explicitly mention the same amount as the dishonoured cheque. Any inconsistency, including typographical errors, invalidates the notice and consequently affects the validity of subsequent proceedings under Section 138.
JUDGMENT
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
2. When the amount mentioned and demanded in the notice sent under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, is different from the amount for which the cheque was issued, whether the notice would stand valid in eye of law; whether a defence that such was a typographical error could be a ground which could be countenanced in law - are the questions falling for consideration in the present appeals.
2.1. The appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2024 in Crl. M.C. No.2164 of 2022 and Crl. M.A. No.9155 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the High Court quashed the Criminal Complaint No.523804 of 2016 filed by the respondent herein under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’), on the ground that amount mentioned in the notice was not the same as per the cheque, which rendered the notice invalid.
3. Stated in brief, the facts in the background are inter alia that a complaint came to be filed by the appellant herein against the respondent-arraigned as accuse No.3, alleging t
Dishonour of cheque – When amount mentioned and demanded in notice sent under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to payee or holder in due course of cheque, is different ....
The legal notice must demand only the cheque amount for the maintainability of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, as per the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act.
The legal notice under section 138 of the N.I. Act serves the purpose of intimating the drawer about the liability to remit the amount, and a literal interpretation of the law should be avoided to pr....
The main legal principle established is that the sufficiency of a notice of demand for a dishonoured cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not require explicit language demanding the cheque a....
Point of law : Negotiable instruments - Though in the notice, the demand for compensation, interest, cost, etc. is also made, the drawer will be absolved from his liability under Section 138 of the N....
Dishonour of cheque – By making a higher demand in a notice sent under Section 138(b) of N.I. Act, would not by itself invalidate notice provided, details of claim towards additional amounts are spec....
The demand notice under section 138 of NI Act should specifically ask for the payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated period.
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
