Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Apputty, S/o. Edaparambil Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
T. Yahutty, S/o. Bava – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint on cheque dishonour under ni act. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's review of trial records and language of notice. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 3. notice requirements under section 138 ni act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. matter remanded for fresh disposal. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the NI Act') against the 1st respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirur (for short, 'the trial court') alleging an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, as S.T.No.4120 of 1995. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint as not maintainable, relying on the decision of the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court in Gopa Devi Ozha v. Sujit Paul , [1996 (2) KLT 886], which held that a notice of demand must be for the cheque amount and that if a higher or smaller amount is claimed in the notice, it is not a valid notice. This revision petition has been filed challenging the said order.
2. Heard Sri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The Calcutta High Court in Gopa Devi Ozha (supra) has held that if a higher or
A valid notice under Section 138 of the NI Act must specify the cheque amount, while additional claims can be made if clearly distinguished.
A demand notice under Section 138 must specify the cheque amount; additional claims do not invalidate it if clearly separated.
Dishonour of cheque – When amount mentioned and demanded in notice sent under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to payee or holder in due course of cheque, is different ....
The legal notice must demand only the cheque amount for the maintainability of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, as per the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act.
A legal notice under Section 138 of the NI Act must specify the amount due; failure to do so invalidates the notice and any subsequent complaint.
A demand notice issued under Section 138 (proviso b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act must specifically state the amount of money demanded; failure to specify the amount renders the notice invalid f....
A notice under Section 138 must clearly demand the cheque amount; ambiguity can invalidate proceedings, but if the demand is sufficiently clear, the notice is valid.
A notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is valid if it primarily demands the cheque amount, even if it includes additional claims for costs or fees.
Point of law : Negotiable instruments - Though in the notice, the demand for compensation, interest, cost, etc. is also made, the drawer will be absolved from his liability under Section 138 of the N....
Dishonour of cheque – By making a higher demand in a notice sent under Section 138(b) of N.I. Act, would not by itself invalidate notice provided, details of claim towards additional amounts are spec....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
