Ravi VS Kuttappan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

R.BASANT
Ravi – Appellant
Versus
Kuttappan – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:R. Vishnu, Advocate.
For the Respondents: C.K. Suresh (Government Pleader).

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Provides that notice must be given within 30 days under proviso (b) to Section 138; despatch within 30 days by post/courier suffices for compliance [6000043150007]. - The act of giving notice is satisfied by posting the notice within 30 days, even if receipt occurs later; Section 94 allows notice by post and miscarriage of post does not invalidate notice (!) (!) . - The timing for proviso (c) focuses on receipt of notice for payment due, with the date of receipt being crucial [6000043150002] (!) . - Madhu v. Omega Pipes Ltd. discussed despatch ahead of the end of the period to account for postal delays, but the present judgment clarifies that despatch within 30 days is sufficient for proviso (b) and receipt timing is relevant for proviso (c) [6000043150005][6000043150006][6000043150007]. - The court ultimately held that the writ petition challenging prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacking merit; notice despatched within 30 days suffices [6000043150008][6000043150009].

How to determine whether notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is sufficient if despatched within 30 days by post?

What is the meaning of "giving of notice" under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in relation to receipt of notice?

What is the relevance of despatch timing versus receipt timing (and the Madhu v. Omega Pipes Ltd. precedent) for compliance with proviso (b) and proviso (c) of Section 138?

JUDGMENT

R. Basant, J. — Should the notice of demand under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be issued such that the drawer shall receive the notice within the period of 30 days? Is it sufficient if such notice is put into post within the said period of 30 days? How is the expression “by giving a notice in writing within thirty days of the receipt of information” in proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be understood? Does the observation in Madhu v. Omega Pipes Ltd.,1 that such notice must be despatched “reasonably ahead of the expiry of fifteen days” oblige the complainant to despatch such notice in such time as to ensure receipt within 30 days? These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration in this case.

2. Fundamental facts are not in dispute. The cheque dated 29.4.2005 for Rs.80,000 was dishonoured on 3.5.2005 and intimation was given of such dishonour on the same day. Notice of demand dated 1.6.2005 was issued on 1.6.2005. It was put into post on 1.6.2005 and was received by the drawer on 4.6.2005. If it is sufficient that despatch of the notice is made within 30 days, the notice is sufficient and proper.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

R.BASANTRavi – AppellantVersusKuttappan – Respondent

How to determine whether notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is sufficient if despatched within 30 days by post?

What is the meaning of "giving of notice" under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in relation to receipt of notice?

What is the relevance of despatch timing versus receipt timing (and the Madhu v. Omega Pipes Ltd. precedent) for compliance with proviso (b) and proviso (c) of Section 138?

Cases Referred (1)

R.BASANT
Ravi – Appellant
Versus
Kuttappan – Respondent