Sr. No. 106 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Ramesh Kumar …..Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. Maneesh Rampal, Advocate Vs Shri Ram Transport Finance Company .…. Respondent(s)

Ltd Through:

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

12.12.2025

01. Issue notice to the respondent in the main as well as in the interim application, returnable by the next date of hearing, subject to taking of requisite steps for service within a week’s period, for filing of response/objections.

02. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner in respect of his prayer for grant of interim relief. The learned counsel during his arguments inter alia stressed on the point that since the non-applicant/respondent as per its demand notice dated 06.05.2023, required the applicant/petitioner to make payment of Rs.12,16,773/- as the total alleged overdue amount including cheque amount of Rs.4,50,000/- along with the interest @ 12% per annum till the time of the actual payment within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, as such, the said notice does not qualify to be the requisite notice in terms of the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “The Act” for short). He contended that the non- applicant/respondent upon the alleged dishonour of the cheque dated 28.02.2023 issued by him (i.e. the petitioner) in respect of the payment of Rs.4,50,000/- from his Account No. 0640040100000078 maintained as ICIC Bank Limited Samba, J&K was required to issue the demand notice limited to the said cheque amount which has not been done.

03. The learned counsel while placing reliance on the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited as “Kaveri Plastics v/s Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul” 2025 Live Law (SC) 927 contended that it has been authoritatively held in the said case under similar circumstances that the notice to be issued under proviso (b) to the Section 138 of the Act must mention the same amount for which the cheque was issued. That it is mandatory that the demand in the statutory notice has to be of the very amount of the cheque. It is profitable to reproduce the paras 8, 8.1 and 8.2 of the judgment for the ready reference-

“8. From the afore-stated reiterative pronouncements and the principles propounded by the courts, the position of law that emerges is that the notice demanding the payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque is one of the main ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the event of the main ingredient not being satisfied on account of Page 23 of 25 discrepancy in the amount of cheque and one mentioned in the notice, all proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act would fall flat as bad in law. The notice to be issued under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act, must mention the same amount for which the cheque was issued. It is mandatory that the demand in the statutory notice has to be the very amount of the cheque. After mentioning the exact cheque amount, the sender of the service may claim in the notice amounts such as legal charges, notice charges, interest and such other additional amounts, provided the cheque amount is specified to be demanded for payment.

8.1 A failure in above regard, namely when the cheque amount is not mentioned in the Proviso (b) notice or the amount different than the actual cheque amount is mentioned, in the notice, such notice would stand invalid in eye of law. The notice in terms of Proviso (b) being a provision in penal statute and a condition for the offence, it has to be precise while mentioning of the amount of the cheque which is dishonoured. Even if the cheque details are mentioned in the notice but corresponding amount of cheque is not correctly mentioned, it would not bring in law the validity for such notice. Here the principle of reading of notice as a whole is inapplicable and irrelevant. Any elasticity cannot be adopted in the interpretation. It has to be given t