Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Consequence of Non-Furnishing a Copy of Promissory Notice in Reply - Main points and insights:
Discharge of Liability: If the debtor does not reply to a legal or promissory notice, it generally does not bar the creditor from maintaining a suit. The absence of a reply alone is not necessarily fatal to the creditor's case, but failure to provide a copy of the promissory note upon request can weaken the defendant's defense and may impact the credibility of the transaction ["H.M. Tikiri Banda Herath vs D.J.M.G. Kusumawathie - Supreme Court"], ["B.V. Ranga Rao vs Sri Nandamari Venkat Jaganadha Kumar - Telangana"], ["G.Radha Rani vs Sri Eranki Phani Kumar - Telangana"].
Requirement to Furnish Copy: When a promissory note is dishonoured, the law emphasizes the importance of providing a copy of the promissory note to the debtor, especially if requested, to establish the claim's genuineness. Failure to furnish such a copy, despite requests, can lead to the defendant's discharge from liability or weaken the plaintiff’s case ["H.M. Tikiri Banda Herath vs D.J.M.G. Kusumawathie - Supreme Court"], ["G.Radha Rani vs Sri Eranki Phani Kumar - Telangana"].
Effect on Defence and Evidence: Not replying to the notice or not furnishing a copy when demanded can be used by the defendant to rebut the presumption of liability. If the defendant denies the execution or considers the promissory note forged, non-furnishing the copy can be a disadvantage to the plaintiff's case ["B.V. Ranga Rao vs Sri Nandamari Venkat Jaganadha Kumar - Telangana"], ["G.Radha Rani vs Sri Eranki Phani Kumar - Telangana"].
Legal Precedent: Courts have held that non-reply to a pre-suit notice is not automatically fatal, but the failure to produce or furnish the copy of the promissory note upon request can be detrimental to the plaintiff's case and may be interpreted as a sign of bad faith or fabrication ["H.M. Tikiri Banda Herath vs D.J.M.G. Kusumawathie - Supreme Court"], ["G.Radha Rani vs Sri Eranki Phani Kumar - Telangana"].
Rebuttal and Discharge: The defendant can use the non-furnishing of the promissory note as a ground to rebut the presumption of debt, especially if they can prove the note was not executed or was forged. Non-furnishing can lead to the defendant being discharged from liability if it is shown that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution or consideration ["H.M. Tikiri Banda Herath vs D.J.M.G. Kusumawathie - Supreme Court"], ["B.V. Ranga Rao vs Sri Nandamari Venkat Jaganadha Kumar - Telangana"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
The primary consequence of not furnishing a copy of the promissory notice as required in reply is that it can weaken the plaintiff's case and may provide grounds for the defendant to rebut the presumption of liability. While non-reply to the notice alone does not always bar a suit, failure to produce the promissory note or its copy upon request can lead to the defendant being discharged or the case being dismissed. Courts emphasize the importance of transparency and compliance with procedural requirements, and non-compliance can be exploited by the defendant to challenge the enforceability of the promissory note ["H.M. Tikiri Banda Herath vs D.J.M.G. Kusumawathie - Supreme Court"], ["G.Radha Rani vs Sri Eranki Phani Kumar - Telangana"].
References:- ["H.M. Tikiri Banda Herath vs D.J.M.G. Kusumawathie - Supreme Court"]- ["Mallawa Waduge Jayaratne No. 167/22 vs Wickramaarachchige Senani - Supreme Court"]- ["K. Meenakumari VS K. N. Prasad - Madras"]- ["BHARTI MUKESH CHANDARANA MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT. TAX) WARD 2(1)(1) MUMBAI - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal"]- ["B.V. Ranga Rao vs Sri Nandamari Venkat Jaganadha Kumar - Telangana"]- ["G.Radha Rani vs Sri Eranki Phani Kumar - Telangana"]- ["Suvarapu Venkateswara Rao VS Addada Koteswara Rao - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Ratanbai VS Manglaben - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["O. P. GUPTA VS SARLA DEVI JAIN - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1512"]- ["O.P. Gupta vs Sarla Devi Jain - Delhi (2018)"]- ["O P GUPTA Vs SARLA DEVI JAIN - Delhi"]- ["ELUMALAI vs RAMU - Madras"]- ["O P GUPTA vs SARLA DEVI JAIN - Delhi"]- ["Asu Singh Rajput VS Gehlot Enterprises Ltd. - Rajasthan"]- ["Vivriti Capital Limited vs Gensol Electric Vehicles Private Limited - National Company Law Tribunal"]- ["O P GUPTA vs SARLA DEVI JAIN - Delhi"] 2018_DHC_3840- ["Veera Constructions, represented by its Managing Director VS R. Karthick - Madras"]
In debt recovery and civil litigation, promissory notes are powerful tools for enforcing obligations. But what happens if a creditor fails to furnish a copy of the promissory notice as required in a reply notice? This seemingly procedural step can have severe repercussions, potentially derailing your entire case. This blog explores the legal requirements, penalties, and judicial insights surrounding this issue, drawing from statutory provisions like Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), and key case law.
Whether you're a lender, business owner, or facing a debt claim, understanding these consequences is crucial. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
Creditors holding promissory notes typically must serve a legal notice demanding repayment before filing a suit. This notice establishes the debtor's awareness and fulfills procedural fairness, often as a prerequisite under laws like the NI Act.
Courts or debtors may demand a copy of this notice to verify proper service. Without it, claims of due demand falter, especially in NI Act Section 138 proceedings involving cheque dishonor or civil recovery suits under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Key provisions include:- Section 138, NI Act: Requires notice within 30 days of dishonor; proof via copy is essential O.P. Gupta vs Sarla Devi Jain - Delhi (2018).- CPC: Courts direct production to check compliance Vijaya Laxmi Agarwal vs SBPL Infrastructure Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15268.
Courts stress proof of service as a condition precedent for suits R. Singaravadivelan vs Durai Senthil - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2330.
Failing to provide the notice copy isn't minor—it's often fatal to claims.
Courts may infer no proper demand was made, drawing adverse inferences against the creditor. This weakens evidence, leading to claim rejection O. P. GUPTA VS SARLA DEVI JAIN - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1512. As one ruling notes, absence of the copy presumes improper demand O.P. Gupta vs Sarla Devi Jain - Delhi (2018).
Non-compliance frequently results in dismissal. For instance, under Section 138, failure to produce the notice copy leads to complaint dismissal Vijaya Laxmi Agarwal vs SBPL Infrastructure Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15268. In civil suits, suits are dismissed for lacking proof of demand R. Singaravadivelan vs Durai Senthil - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2330.
In broader contexts, non-furnishing essential documents like undertakings in tenders justifies bid cancellation S. K. SAMANTA & CO. (P) LTD. VS MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED - 2017 Supreme(Ori) 1471, echoing procedural strictness.
Expect:- Suit dismissal.- Evidence rejection.- Adverse inferences favoring debtors.
Judges repeatedly highlight the copy's role. Not producing the copy of the legal notice served upon the debtor weakens the case for recovery O.P. Gupta vs Sarla Devi Jain - Delhi (2018)O. P. GUPTA VS SARLA DEVI JAIN - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1512. Mere debtor receipt without contents proof fails R. Singaravadivelan vs Durai Senthil - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2330.
The burden rests on creditors to prove service via the copy O.P. Gupta vs Sarla Devi Jain - Delhi (2018).
Non-production often dismisses cases as demand proof is unfulfilled Vijaya Laxmi Agarwal vs SBPL Infrastructure Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15268.
Intentional withholding or fabrication invites contempt or penalties Pani Ram Kalita VS State of Assam and Ors. - 2009 0 Supreme(Gau) 588.
Non-furnishing extends beyond promissory notes. In administrative matters, failing to provide enquiry report copies raises natural justice issues—but no prejudice means no interference. For example, if a party replies effectively without the report, no harm is shown Rajesh Prasad Gupta VS State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary - 2014 Supreme(Gau) 276RAJESH PRASAD GUPTA VS STATE OF ASSAM - 2014 Supreme(Gau) 281. When the petitioner could furnish an effective reply to the show cause notice without the copy of the said enquiry report, no prejudice was caused to his defence RAJESH PRASAD GUPTA VS STATE OF ASSAM - 2014 Supreme(Gau) 281.
Under NI Act Section 118, defendants rebut presumptions if plaint varies from note or notice, via preponderance of probabilities Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand - 1999 Supreme(Online)(SC) 40. The defendant can rebut the presumption under S.118(a) by showing a preponderance of probabilities in his favour Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand - 1999 Supreme(Online)(SC) 40N. Raveendrananthan Nair VS Vijayakumar - 2014 Supreme(Ker) 167. Non-reply to notices also weighs against parties N. Raveendrananthan Nair VS Vijayakumar - 2014 Supreme(Ker) 167.
In tenders, strict compliance rules: The main deficiency... is non-furnishing of undertaking as required by Clause 6.1 (d) of the e-tender notice... passing of the impugned order for non-compliance... is fully justified S. K. SAMANTA & CO. (P) LTD. VS MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED - 2017 Supreme(Ori) 1471.
These illustrate courts' emphasis on document production across domains.
| Aspect | Penalty / Consequence | Source/Case Law ||--------|-----------------------|-----------------|| Non-furnishing of notice copy | Dismissal of suit, adverse inference | O.P. Gupta vs Sarla Devi Jain - Delhi (2018)O. P. GUPTA VS SARLA DEVI JAIN - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1512 || Failure to prove proper service | Dismissal, case rejection | R. Singaravadivelan vs Durai Senthil - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2330 || Fabrication or false declaration | Contempt, penalties under law | Pani Ram Kalita VS State of Assam and Ors. - 2009 0 Supreme(Gau) 588 || Non-compliance under Section 138 | Acquittal, legal invalidity | Vijaya Laxmi Agarwal vs SBPL Infrastructure Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15268 |
Non-furnishing a promissory notice copy risks dismissal, acquittals, and credibility loss. Courts demand strict compliance to ensure fairness—always retain and produce copies promptly.
Key Takeaways:- Serve notices correctly and keep copies.- Anticipate court demands in NI Act or CPC suits.- Non-compliance typically leads to adverse outcomes, though prejudice must sometimes be shown.- Rebut presumptions carefully if defending.
Sources Referenced:- O.P. Gupta vs Sarla Devi Jain - Delhi (2018)- O. P. GUPTA VS SARLA DEVI JAIN - 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1512- R. Singaravadivelan vs Durai Senthil - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2330- Vijaya Laxmi Agarwal vs SBPL Infrastructure Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15268- Pani Ram Kalita VS State of Assam and Ors. - 2009 0 Supreme(Gau) 588- Natesa Mooppan VS K. R. Ramachendra Aiyar - 1914 0 Supreme(Mad) 450- Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand - 1999 Supreme(Online)(SC) 40- S. K. SAMANTA & CO. (P) LTD. VS MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED - 2017 Supreme(Ori) 1471- Rajesh Prasad Gupta VS State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary - 2014 Supreme(Gau) 276- RAJESH PRASAD GUPTA VS STATE OF ASSAM - 2014 Supreme(Gau) 281- N. Raveendrananthan Nair VS Vijayakumar - 2014 Supreme(Ker) 167
This guide draws from established precedents to inform; seek professional advice for case-specific guidance.
#PromissoryNoteLaw, #DebtRecovery, #LegalNotice
dishonoured by non-acceptance and due notice of dishonour is given, it shall not be necessary to give notice of a subsequent dishonour by non- payment unless the bill shall in the meantime have been accepted.” ... Section 50(2) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance provides that a notice can be dispensed with if; “Notice of dishonour is dispensed with - (a) When, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, notice as required by this Ordinance cannot be ....
and due notice of dishonour is given, it shall not be necessary to give notice of a subsequent dishonour by non-payment unless the bill shall in the meantime have been accepted.” ... Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, when a bill has been dishonoured by non- acceptance or by non-payment, notice of dishonour must be given to the drawer and each indorser, and any drawer or indorser to whom such notice is not given is discharged: Provided that- p ... the bill, ....
The defendant cannot be non-suited and his defence struck off just because he did not send a reply to the pre-suit notice. Non-reply to a pre-suit notice would never become fatal to the defendant's case. ... Per contra, the counsel for the respondent would submit that the plaintiff caused a lawyer's notice which was admittedly received by the defendant and having chosen not to reply to the same, the defendant cannot setup any defence in the suit as t....
The assessee stated that she is an NRI and that on the date mentioned on promissory note i.e. on 7 April 2016, she was not in India. The reply of assessee was not accepted by assessing officer. ... The assessing officer on the basis of information with him, issued show cause notice to the assessee for furnishing bank account, bank statement from financial year 2014-15 and 2015-16 along with narration,details of cash withdrawal and transfer. ... Moreover, appellant is a non-resident of India and was not ....
recitals in the promissory note, or the case set up in suit notice or in the plaint is not true and rebut the presumption under S.118 by showing a preponderance of probabilities in his favour and against the plaintiff. ... In our view the presumption applies once the execution of the promissory note is accepted by the defendant but the circumstance that the plaintiff's case is at variance with the one contained in the promissory note or the notice can be relied upon by the defendant for the purpose of r....
The plaintiff after receipt of said reply notices, got issued another notice dated 29.09.2012 enclosing the photo copy of the said promissory note. ... The defendant received a notice on 04.08.2012 from Sri P.S.N Murthy, Advocate of Secunderabad on behalf of the plaintiff. Surprised at the said notice, the defendant gave a reply dated 18.08.2012 denying about the loan and requesting for furnishing a photostat copy of the alleged pr....
The plaintiff after receipt of said reply notices, got issued another notice dated 29.09.2012 enclosing the photo copy of the said promissory note. ... The defendant received a notice on 04.08.2012 from Sri P.S.N Murthy, Advocate of Secunderabad on behalf of the plaintiff. Surprised at the said notice, the defendant gave a reply dated 18.08.2012 denying about the loan and requesting for furnishing a photostat copy of the alleged pro....
By and to whom notice should be given :— When a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is dishonoured by non-acceptance or non-payment, the holder thereof, or some party thereto who remains liable thereon, must give notice that the instrument has been so dishonoured to all ... Whether the suit on promissory note is maintainable in the absence of pre-suit demand notice and therefore, the judgments of both the Courts below are erroneous? 2. ... As against that wha....
The non-applicant had served the applicant with a notice of demand. The applicant gave reply of that notice through an Advocate which is on record. In that reply the applicant denied to have executed the pronote on the receipt of the consideration amount of Rs. 40,000. ... The non-applicant had filed summary suit under Order 37, Rule 3 CPC upon a promissory note. The applicant appeared before the Court and prayed for leave to defend the case. ... However, while imposi....
return of Rs.3 Lakhs, execution of the second promissory note for Rs.7 Lakhs, issuance of the legal notice, non-receipt of any reply, oral evidence and testimony of all the witnesses. ... A reply was allegedly sent and was claimed to have been filed on record. However, in his cross-examination DW-1 stated as under: ... “It is correct that I have received the notice sent to me through Registered AD as well as UPC. I have also sent the reply of the said notice....
The main deficiency in furnishing of the documents by the petitioner is non-furnishing of undertaking as required by Clause 6.1 (d) of the e-tender notice. The said undertaking has admittedly not been furnished till date, in any format, either as prescribed in the bid document or otherwise. As such, passing of the impugned order for non-compliance of such undertaking is fully justified in law.
According to them the petitioner having been given due participation in the enquiry to project his version of the case, there was substantial compliance of the right to be heard. As regards the alleged non-furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report, they have contended that when the petitioner could furnish an affective reply to the show cause notice without the copy of the said enquiry report, no prejudice was caused to his defence.
As regards the alleged non-furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report, they have contended that when the petitioner could furnish an affective reply to the show cause notice without the copy of the said enquiry report, no prejudice was caused to his defence. According to them the petitioner having been given due participation in the enquiry to project his version of the case, there was substantial compliance of the right to be heard.
The non furnishing of reply to the lawyer notice Ext.A2 was also taken as a circumstance against the defendants. According to the trial court, even though the plaintiff is not able to prove the consideration stated in Ext.A1 promissory note and the averments in the plaint, the admission of the defendants in the written statement would go to show that they undertook the liability of Shri Anil Prasad and for the repayment of the amount due from him to the plaintiff, executed Ext.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.
This fact of acknowledgement of receipt of such notice is appearing in the copy of the notice itself. He further contends that the payment was to be made and, in fact, it was made to the writ petitioners under the condition of the tender document in a bank situates at Kagajnagar. It was received by and on behalf of Durga Trading Company by its authorized representative at Kagajnagar, Assam. Under those circumstances it cannot be said that the principle of debtor must seek creditor does and can arise.
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
