IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH N.
Gangavarapu Chandrasekhar Naidu S/o Chenchaiah Naidu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is seeking quash of CC.No.250 of 2023 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur. The petitioner is arraigned as accused for the alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent filed a complaint alleging that the 2nd respondent along with one M.Naga Raju were in the real estate business and in order to facilitate generation of revenue an agreement of sale cum GPA was entered on the name of the petitioner with an understanding that the accused will re-convey the title to the complainant.
3. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner along with M.Naga Raju without any intimation to the 2nd respondent executed a registered sale deed to one R.Sunil Kumar and collected the sale consideration. On demand from the 2nd respondent it is alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque towards part-payment and that the said cheque was dishonoured when it was presented.
4. The cheque bearing No.000005, dated 01.01.2023 was presented on 18.01.2023 which was returned dishonoured on 19.01.2023, thereafter, a legal notice dated 27.01.2023 was issued which was served on the petitioner on
Rahul Builders Vs. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals and Another
A legal notice under Section 138 of the NI Act must specify the amount due; failure to do so invalidates the notice and any subsequent complaint.
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....
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 must specify the cheque amount correctly; ambiguity renders the complaint invalid.
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 demand notice under section 138 of NI Act should specifically ask for the payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated period.
A legal notice under Section 138 must clearly state the cheque amount due; a vague demand fails to meet legal requirements, rendering the complaint invalid.
Dishonour of cheque – If there is indication in notice of any other amount covered by cheque, it is not invalidated.
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.