SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Ker) 255

R.BASANT
K. K. Ravi – Appellant
Versus
V. D. Kuttappan – Respondent


Judgment :-

Should the notice of demand under proviso (b) to Sec.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 Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be understood? Does the observation in Madhu v. Omega Pipes Ltd., (1994(1) KLT 441) 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 29/4/05 for Rs.80,000/- was dishonoured on 3/5/05 and intimation was given of such dishonour on the same day. Notice of demand dated 1/6/05 was issued on 1/6/05. It was put into post on 1/6/05 and was received by the drawer on 4/6/05. 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top