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

2003 Supreme(Ker) 260

G.SASIDHARAN, KURIAN JOSEPH
Immanual – Appellant
Versus
M. K. Rajappan – Respondent


Judgment :-

Sasidharan, J.

Proviso (b) to Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act says that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has to make a demand for payment of the amount of money covered by the cheque by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and the question which arises for consideration is whether the expression "receipt of information" used in the above proviso means receipt of information in writing. A learned Judge of this Court Shafi, J. held in John v. George Jacob (1999(2) KLT 699) that the expression "receipt of information" used in proviso (b) to Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act means receipt of information in writing and not a mere oral information. In the above proviso it is stated that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has to make a demand for payment of the amount by giving a notice in writing. When mentioning about giving of notice it is said that the notice will have to be in writing whereas in saying about receipt of information it is not mentioned in the proviso that the information













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