IMPORTANT POINT
Notice must be specific and demand should be clear.

Ms. Mukta Gupta, J.— The present petition seeks quashing and return of the complaint No. 7431/2007 dated 12th March, 2007 pending in the Court of Shri Ajay Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi on the ground that essential ingredient of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (in short N.I. Act) are not fulfilled and the learned Trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.

2. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner confined his prayer to the first issue only as the issue of territorial jurisdiction is pending before the Division Bench of this Court for consideration. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in terms of proviso (b) to Section 138 N.I. Act, the amount demanded should be specified. However, the legal notice in the present case does not specify the amount demanded and thus the same is not a valid legal notice. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals & Anr.1

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand states that the legal notice was not drafted by an advocate and it is not essential that the amount should be specified in the legal notice. Reliance is placed on Melton India Pvt. Ltd. v. Ester Industries Ltd. MANU/DE/1839/2010.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Respondent, a company dealing in Marketing, Advertising and Promotion, raised a bill No. 551/06-07 dated 31st October, 2006 for sum of Rs.1,10,904 in respect of advertisement published in the “Hindustan Times” in Delhi, Mumbai and Chandigarh and sent the same to the Petitioners along with a covering letter dated 9th November, 2006. towards payment of the aforementioned bill the Petitioners herein purportedly issued a cheque No. 153998 dated 31st January, 2007 for an amount of Rs.1,09,662 drawn on UTI Bank, Branch T-Nagar, Chennai. The same was presented by the Respondent to its bankers Punjab National Bank, Rajender Nagar Branch, Delhi for payment on 1st February, 2007. However, the said cheque was returned by the Petitioners bank on 3rd February, 2007 for the reason “payment stopped by the drawer”. Pursuant thereto the Respondent issued a legal notice dated 5th February, 2007 to the Petitioner demanding to pay the amount within a week from the date of receipt of the notice. However, the Petitioners failed to make payment. Hence, the complaint under Section 138 NI Act.

5. The legal notice dated 5th February, 2007 reads as under:

“RKJK:4838/07 5th February, 2007

Anand Subramaniyam,

Managing Director,

Brainobrain Kids Academy Pvt. Ltd.

36, Melony Road, T. Nagar,

Chennai -17

Dr. Mr. Anand,

This is in reference to your post-dated cheque No.153988 dated 31st January, 2007 in settlement of our bill no P551/06-07 given to us at the time of release on your behalf.

I have received the intimation from the bank alongwith the cheque having been stopped the payment by you, which is illegal, professionally unethical, against INS Rules. You have not only violated the terms of the working but also have not issued us the TDS certificates since the beginning of working together.

Before we initiate further action on the matter with INS and file legal proceedings against you I shall request you to immediately send us your Draft for the amount within week from the date of receipt of this letter. This is clear case of cheating and as such all damages and legal charges shall be at your cost. This may be considered as legal notice as per the law.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,!

For Continental Advertising Pvt. Ltd.

P.K. Mehta

Managing Director.”

6. Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act provides for penalties in case of dishonor of cheques for insufficiency of funds in the Account provided the cheque is presented to the bank within six months from the date on which it is drawn or within its validity, whichever is earlier, the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the p