Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Hiren Dasan, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli and Rajnish Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Amit Singh Chhadha and Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Advocates.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. Once a notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is received by the drawer of the cheque, the payee or holder forfeits the right to present the same cheque again to create a new cause of action after the initial cause of action has arisen due to the first notice (!) (!) .

2. The act of presenting a dishonoured cheque multiple times during its validity period does not constitute multiple causes of action; rather, each presentation is a right that can be exercised, but the cause of action is singular and arises only once when the legal notice is received and the drawer fails to pay within the prescribed period (!) (!) .

3. The cause of action within the meaning of Section 142(c) arises only once, and the period for filing a complaint is to be counted from the day after the expiry of the fifteen-day period from the receipt of the legal notice, after which the right to file a complaint is barred (!) (!) .

4. The receipt of the legal notice by the drawer is a crucial event; once the notice is received, the payee forfeits the right to present the cheque again to establish a new cause of action, even if the cheque is dishonoured multiple times (!) (!) .

5. The period of limitation for filing a complaint is strictly one month from the day following the expiry of the fifteen-day period after receipt of the legal notice, and this period cannot be extended or stopped once the cause of action has arisen (!) (!) .

6. The primary purpose of successive presentations of a cheque is to recover the amount owed, not to establish multiple causes of action; each presentation does not reset or extend the cause of action once the initial legal notice has been received and the period has expired (!) (!) .

7. It is not permissible for the payee to create a new cause of action with the same cheque after the initial cause has been established through proper legal notice and the failure of the drawer to pay within the stipulated period (!) .

8. The legal framework emphasizes that the cause of action is singular and that subsequent presentations or notices do not revive or create new causes of action once the original has been forfeited by receipt of the legal notice and the expiry of the prescribed period (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further assistance or clarification.