Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Service of Notice - Mandatory Requirement: Under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, the issuance of a statutory demand notice is a mandatory step before filing a complaint. The notice must be in writing and properly served to the accused. If the notice is returned unserved with endorsements like addressee left India or addressee left, it indicates that the notice could not be physically delivered to the accused. However, such endorsements do not automatically invalidate the service if the sender had reason to believe the address was correct and the accused was reachable at that address ["M USMAN vs M P MUHAMMED ALI & ANOTHER - Kerala"], ["UPPALAPATI YASODHAR vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - Andhra Pradesh"], ["M. Usman VS M. P. Muhammed Ali - Kerala"].
Presumption of Service upon Return with Endorsements: Courts have held that once a notice is sent by registered post, and it is returned with endorsements such as addressee left or addressee left India, there is a presumption of proper service, especially if the sender had reasons to believe the address was correct or the accused was at that address at the time of sending. The Supreme Court has clarified that even if the notice is returned unserved, the act of sending it by registered post fulfills the requirement of service, unless proven otherwise ["M USMAN vs M P MUHAMMED ALI & ANOTHER - Kerala"], ["M. Usman VS M. P. Muhammed Ali - Kerala"], ["K. Annaji Rao VS N. Krishna Raju Sekhar - Andhra Pradesh"].
Knowledge of Accused's Absence and Limitation: The limitation period for filing a complaint under Section 138 is generally within one month from the date the cause of action arises, which is typically when the cheque is dishonored and the demand notice remains unresponded. If the complainant knows the accused has left the address or gone abroad (addressee left India), this knowledge influences the assessment of whether the notice was effectively served and whether the complaint is within the statutory time limit ["M USMAN vs M P MUHAMMED ALI & ANOTHER - Kerala"], ["Suseela Chakrapani VS Union of India - 2009 0 Supreme(Ker) 1186"], ["UPPALAPATI YASODHAR vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - Andhra Pradesh"].
Impact of Endorsements like Addressee Left: When the notice is returned with endorsements such as addressee left or left India, courts have generally held that the service is deemed complete if the sender took reasonable steps to serve the notice at the address provided, especially if the sender was aware or had reasons to believe the accused was at that address or had gone abroad. The absence of specific procedural provisions under Section 138 does not negate the service; rather, the courts rely on the presumption of proper service in such cases ["M. Usman VS M. P. Muhammed Ali - Kerala"], ["M USMAN vs M P MUHAMMED ALI & ANOTHER - Kerala"].
Conclusion: To compute the limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138 when the demand notice is returned with addressee left, the key points are:
References:- ["M USMAN vs M P MUHAMMED ALI & ANOTHER - Kerala"]- ["Sonam Tenzing Bhutia VS State Of West Bengal - Calcutta"]- ["M. Usman VS M. P. Muhammed Ali - Kerala"]- ["UPPALAPATI YASODHAR vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["K. Annaji Rao VS N. Krishna Raju Sekhar - Andhra Pradesh"]
In the fast-paced world of business transactions, cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) are commonplace. But what happens when your demand notice, crucial for triggering the cause of action, is returned undelivered with the endorsement addressee left? Does this halt the limitation period for filing a complaint, or does the clock still tick? This is a frequent dilemma for complainants, and courts have provided clear guidance based on legal presumptions.
If you're wondering how to compute the limitation to file a complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act when the demand notice is returned with the endorsement addressee left, this post breaks it down step by step. We'll explore judicial interpretations, presumptions of service, and practical recommendations. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
Section 138 NI Act penalizes the dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds or other reasons, provided certain conditions are met:- A demand notice must be sent to the drawer within 30 days of receiving bank intimation about dishonour.- The drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receiving the notice.- The complaint must be filed within one month (now 30 days post-2018 amendment) from the date the cause of action arises, i.e., the end of the 15-day payment period Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777.
The cause of action typically accrues 15 days after the notice is deemed served. But service isn't always straightforward, especially with postal endorsements like addressee left.
When a notice sent via registered post returns with addressee left, it doesn't automatically mean non-service. Courts apply a presumption of service under:- Section 27, General Clauses Act, 1897: Service is presumed when sent by registered post to the correct address.- Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Courts presume proper postal delivery unless rebutted C. C. Alavi Haji VS Palapetty Muhammed - 2007 5 Supreme 277Indian Bank Association VS Union of India - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 321.
As held in key judgments, a notice sent to the correct address is deemed served on the date of dispatch, even if returned with addressee left, unless the drawer proves lack of knowledgeKamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777D. Vinod Shivappa VS Nanda Belliappa - 2006 4 Supreme 540. For instance, when notice is returned with endorsement 'addressee always absent,' it can be deemed served, unless the drawer proves he had no knowledge of the notice D. Vinod Shivappa VS Nanda Belliappa - 2006 4 Supreme 540.
The limitation for filing the complaint is one month from the date the cause of action arises – specifically, 15 days after deemed service plus one month thereafter SRIKUMAR CHAKRABORTY VS DATACON SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. - 2006 0 Supreme(Cal) 83Tea Arcade VS Aparna Rai - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 666.
This presumption holds even for endorsements like addressee left, not known, or not available Rozy Kukreja VS Finance Associates - Dishonour Of Cheque (2004)Vijay Kumar Gupta VS Pankaj Sharma - Crimes (2015)Romesh Chander Sharma VS Khushal Bali - Crimes (2018). The endorsement 'addressee left' or similar is a valid ground for presumption of service, unless the drawer proves he had no knowledge of the notice Rozy Kukreja VS Finance Associates - Dishonour Of Cheque (2004).
The drawer can challenge this by proving:- No knowledge of the notice.- Notice not delivered to their address.- Endorsement manipulated or address incorrect.
If rebutted, the complainant may need to re-serve or face dismissal C. C. Alavi Haji VS Palapetty Muhammed - 2007 5 Supreme 277. However, the burden lies on the drawer – mere denial isn't enough Dalmia Cement Ltd. VS Galaxy Trades And Agencies - 2001 0 Supreme(Ker) 37.
In one case, where the notice was returned addressee left India to the residential address provided by the accused, the court noted proper service is crucial, and absence doesn't negate presumption unless evasion is proven M USMAN vs M P MUHAMMED ALI & ANOTHER - 2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41970. Proper service of notice under Sec.138 of the NI Act is crucial; absence of the accused negates presumed service unless evasion is proven.
Courts consistently uphold the presumption:- Sending to the correct address (e.g., from Aadhar card) suffices, even if returned left address Sou. Usha @ Rashmi Ramesh Bhadre vs Raviraj Yuvraj Chavan - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1151. The court ruled that sending notice to a correct address from an official ID meets the compliance requirement under Section 138(b), emphasizing the presumption of service for registered post.- In another, notice returned addressee left didn't prevent conviction as the accused didn't rebut the presumption, and signatures on cheque/letter confirmed liability Chakra Compactors A Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Manager & Power of Attorney Holder, P. Kanda Parameswaran VS D. Vijaya Kumar - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 3973.
Exceptions arise if:- Address is incorrect or accused is abroad without knowledge M USMAN vs M P MUHAMMED ALI & ANOTHER - 2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41970.- Complaint filed prematurely before 15-day period post-deemed service vs - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17725. A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act is premature if filed before the expiry of the statutory 15-day period for payment after notice of dishonour is deemed served.
For refused notices, cause of action arises immediately upon return, without extra 15 days P.S. Madhusoodanan vs Alamelu Ammal - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2817. The cause of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises immediately upon the return of a notice as 'refused', without needing a subsequent 15-day waiting period for payment.
To strengthen your case:- Document dispatch: Retain postal receipt, tracking, and proof of correct address (e.g., from cheque, prior dealings, Aadhar).- Multiple modes: Consider email/Speed Post if registered post fails, but registered post is primary.- Anticipate rebuttal: Gather evidence of drawer's knowledge (e.g., prior communications).- File timely: Compute from dispatch date; don't wait for return.- Court strategy: Produce originals in trial to invoke presumption Rozy Kukreja VS Finance Associates - Dishonour Of Cheque (2004).
If drawer claims non-receipt, courts evaluate evidence holistically Indian Bank Association VS Union of India - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 321.
| Aspect | Ruling ||--------|--------|| Deemed Service | Date of dispatch to correct address Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777 || Limitation Start | 15 days post-deemed service + 1 month SRIKUMAR CHAKRABORTY VS DATACON SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. - 2006 0 Supreme(Cal) 83 || Rebuttal | Drawer's burden to prove no knowledge D. Vinod Shivappa VS Nanda Belliappa - 2006 4 Supreme 540 || Exceptions | Incorrect address or proven non-delivery M USMAN vs M P MUHAMMED ALI & ANOTHER - 2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41970 |
In conclusion, under Section 138 NI Act, a demand notice returned addressee left typically triggers the limitation from the dispatch date due to service presumption. This protects genuine complainants while allowing drawers a fair rebuttal chance. Stay proactive with evidence to avoid procedural pitfalls. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert.
References: Judgments cited inline from established precedents.
#NIAct138, #ChequeBounce, #LegalNoticeService
In the instant case, it is true that the legal notice issued to the accused was returned unserved with endorsement “addressee left India”. The notice under Sec.138(b) of the NI Act had been issued in the residential address given to the complainant. ... of Sec.138(b) of the NI Act. ... The requirement of giving notice is manda....
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that both the courts below failed to appreciate that there had been no service of notice as envisaged under Section 138(b) of the NI Act and therefore complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was bad for want of notice. ... It is therefore clear that the cause of action to file such complaint under Section 138 of the NI#HL_EN....
Section 138 of the Act show that the payee has the statutory obligation to ‘make a demand’ by giving notice. The thrust in the clause is on the need to ‘make a demand’. It is only the mode for making such demand which the legislature has prescribed. ... In other words, it was held that when a notice is returned as 'refused', the period of limitation contemplated by the provisions under a href="./..
Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner prays for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that (i) there no ingredients to constitute offence under Sec. 138 of NI Act, (ii) the complaint is barred by limitation and (iii) the notices sent to the Petitioner were returned. ... As such, again the Complainant had sent notice to the Accused on 24.01.2014 and the same was also returned with an endorsement#H....
That so long as the complainant could prove that he had sent statutory demand notice under Sec.138 proviso (b) of the N.I. ... The cause of action as envisaged in clause (b) of Sec. 142 (as it stood then) read with proviso (c) of Sec. 138 of the N.I. ... Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the mandatory provisions contained clause (b) of Sec.....
That so long as the complainant could prove that he had sent statutory demand notice under Sec.138 proviso (b) of the N.I. ... The cause of action as envisaged in clause (b) of Sec. 142 (as it stood then) read with proviso (c) of Sec. 138 of the N.I. ... Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the mandatory provisions contained clause (b) of Sec.....
That so long as the complainant could prove that he had sent statutory demand notice under Sec.138 proviso (b) of the N.I. ... The cause of action as envisaged in clause (b) of Sec. 142 (as it stood then) read with proviso (c) of Sec. 138 of the N.I. ... Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the mandatory provisions contained clause (b) of Sec.....
The only issue arisen in this petition is “whether it can be said that the Complainant has complied with the provisions of Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act relating to service of notice”. Though the notice dated 05.06.2018 was sent, it returned back with a remark ‘ left address’. ... The interpretation of Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes in favour of the Complainant. It canno....
In the instant case, it is true that the legal notice issued to the accused was returned unserved with endorsement "addressee left India". The notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act had been issued in the residential address given to the complainant. ... On the other hand, if the registered notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of the NI Act was issued ....
P/4’s demand notice was issued within limitation prescribed in the law. It is correct that aforesaid notice was received by respondent/accused on 2.11.1993 (Ex. P/5). Learned trial Court has wrongly calculated period mentioned in section 138(b) of N.I. ... If he does not file a complaint within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 of the ....
Thereafter on presentation of the cheque, since the same was returned for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act was issued and the said notice sent by registered post was returned with an endorsement with "addressee left". It can also be safely found that the accused had not denied the signature found in Ex.P.3, the cheque in question and Ex.P.2, the letter, dated 11.10.2004.
Act without issuance of notice of demand within the limitation as prescribed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. Consequently, the petition under section 482 of CrPC filed by the applicant Sandeep Sabu is hereby disposed off with the direction that the order dated 21.2.2013 shall have no effect in the matter and the respondent cannot prosecute the applicant for the complaint filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “fund insufficient.” A demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act) remained unheeded compelling the Respondent Bank to file a Complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I.Act.
When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “fund insufficient.” A demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act) remained unheeded compelling the Respondent Bank to file a Complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I.
A demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act) remained unheeded compelling the Respondent Bank to file a Complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks “fund insufficient.”
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
