Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Legal Notice Receipt and Calculation of 15 Days - Main Points and Insights
Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), the period for the accused to make payment begins from the date of receipt of the legal notice by the accused. If the accused claims not to have received the notice, they can make payment within 15 days of the date of actual or presumed receipt of the notice or of the summons ["Satheeshan @ Shreeshan, S/o. Aravindhakshan VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"], ["Sunil Kumar Bhagat VS State of Jharkhand - Current Civil Cases"], ["Nemalipitta Vidya Sagar VS State of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Sunil Kumar Bhagat, S/o Late Sheopujan Bhagat VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"].
When the date of receipt is disputed, courts often presume service within a reasonable time, typically 30 days from the date of sending the notice, unless proven otherwise ["O.C.DOEGAR vs GANESH DUTT - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Dyal Negi @ Hardyal vs ANIL KUMAR - Himachal Pradesh"].
If the accused states they received the notice on a specific date (e.g., 09.04.2025) but provides no evidence, the calculation of the 15-day period starts from the date of actual or deemed receipt, which can be presumed as 30 days from the date of dispatch, unless otherwise established ["O.C.DOEGAR vs GANESH DUTT - Himachal Pradesh"].
In cases where the notice was sent on 6 April 2015, and the accused claims receipt on 9 April 2015 but does not prove it, the courts generally consider the date of sending as the starting point. Therefore, the 15 days are calculated from the date of presumed receipt, which is often deemed as 30 days from the date of dispatch ["Dyal Negi @ Hardyal vs ANIL KUMAR - Himachal Pradesh"], ["O.C.DOEGAR vs GANESH DUTT - Himachal Pradesh"].
The general legal principle is:
Analysis and Conclusion
Given the facts:- The legal notice was sent on 6 April 2015.- The accused claims receipt on 9 April 2015 but provides no evidence.
In such circumstances, the courts presume service within a reasonable time, often 30 days from the date of sending, unless the accused proves actual receipt earlier. Since no evidence is provided for receipt on 9 April 2015, the calculation of the 15-day period would typically start from the presumed date of receipt—i.e., 30 days after 6 April 2015, which is around 6 May 2015. Therefore, the 15 days to make payment would be counted from this presumed receipt date, i.e., approximately 6 May 2015.
References:["O.C.DOEGAR vs GANESH DUTT - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Dyal Negi @ Hardyal vs ANIL KUMAR - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Sunil Kumar Bhagat VS State of Jharkhand - Current Civil Cases"], ["Nemalipitta Vidya Sagar VS State of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"]
In cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881, timing is everything. A common dispute arises when the payee sends a demand notice via registered A.D. post, and the drawer (accused) claims they received it later than expected—without any proof. For instance, if the notice is sent on 6 April 2015 and the accused states receipt on 9 April 2025 (likely a typo for 2015) with no evidence, from which date does the crucial 15-day payment period under Section 138(c) begin?
This blog post breaks down the legal principles, judicial precedents, and practical implications to help you navigate such scenarios. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
Section 138 of the NI Act criminalizes cheque dishonour due to insufficient funds or exceeding arrangement. To prosecute, the payee must:- Issue a written demand notice within 30 days of bank dishonour information (proviso (b)).- Allow the drawer 15 days from receipt of the notice to pay the amount (proviso (c)) Econ Antri Ltd. VS Rom Industries Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 783.- File a complaint within one month of the cause of action arising (Section 142(b)).
The offence completes only if payment fails within those 15 days from the date of receipt. Thus, pinpointing the receipt date is pivotal Econ Antri Ltd. VS Rom Industries Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 783.
Courts emphasize that the 15-day clock starts strictly from the date the drawer receives the noticeSaketh India LTD. VS India Securities LTD. - 1999 2 Supreme 389. When sent via registered A.D. post on 6 April 2015, a presumption of service arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 Anwar Saifi VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 443.
Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by... must rebut with evidence Anwar Saifi VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 443. Bare denial fails.
The accused's oral claim of receiving the notice on 9 April (or absurdly 2025) without proof—like postal records, refusal acknowledgment, or witnesses—is insufficient to rebut the presumptionM. Krishna Reddy VS J. Loknarayana - Dishonour Of Cheque (2009).
In one case, despite the accused suggesting receipt on 19 December 1997, the court fixed it on 10 December (2 days post-issue): PW1 stated that he was not aware the accused received the notice on 10.12.1997. Similarly, counsel for accused gave a specific suggestion... received... on 19-12-1997. So... it can be safely said that the accused must have received the notice on 10-12-1997. M. Krishna Reddy VS J. Loknarayana - Dishonour Of Cheque (2009)
Analogously, courts disregard unproven later claims, deeming receipt via reasonable transit time (e.g., ~8 April 2015) Saketh India LTD. VS India Securities LTD. - 1999 2 Supreme 389. The 2025 date typo further undermines credibility as it's post-dated to sending.
Registered A.D. triggers a strong presumption: Section 27 of the GC Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act... presumed that he has received summons... cannot contend that there was no proper service of notice Anwar Saifi VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 443.
Even if, in a case he has not received a notice by post, it is open for the accused to make payment... within a period of 15 days of summons—but this doesn't shift the initial timeline Manjulaben H. Pandya VS Gurumukhdas Bhagwandas Vaswani - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 1560.
Once receipt is fixed (say, 8 April 2015), the 15 days run excluding the receipt date:- Period expires on the 15th day after.- E.g., Receipt 8 April → 15 days to 22 April; cause of action from 23 April Saketh India LTD. VS India Securities LTD. - 1999 2 Supreme 389.
Supreme Court in Saketh India Ltd.: According to the complainant for calculating one month’s period contemplated under Section 142(b), the date ‘15/10/1995’ has to be excluded. Notice served 29 September 1995; 15 days expired 14 October 1995 Saketh India LTD. VS India Securities LTD. - 1999 2 Supreme 389.
As per clause (c) of Section 138, starting point of period for making payment is the date of receipt of the notice. Once it starts, the offence is completed on failure to pay the amount within 15 days therefrom. Econ Antri Ltd. VS Rom Industries Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 783
For complaints, file post-15 days but within one month of cause of action, excluding starting day Mahesh Chandra Maheshwari VS Bhadohi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Gyanpur - 2020 Supreme(All) 68. Notice returned unclaimed and received by complainant on 14.09.2000. If this date is taken... 15 days' time would expire on 29.09.2000. Mahesh Chandra Maheshwari VS Bhadohi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Gyanpur - 2020 Supreme(All) 68
These reinforce strict adherence to timelines and presumptions.
For Payees:- Send via registered A.D.; retain proof.- File post-presumed 15 days (~23 April 2015 here), within one month.- In trial, highlight accused's lack of proof; seek A.D. acknowledgment.
For Drawers:- Pay within 15 days of actual receipt or court summons.- To rebut, provide cogent evidence (postal records).
Courts decide via preponderance: reasonable transit time prevails without contrary proof.
Cheque bounce cases hinge on precise timelines—get it right to avoid dismissal. Stay informed, but always seek professional legal counsel for your situation.
References:1. M. Krishna Reddy VS J. Loknarayana - Dishonour Of Cheque (2009): Rejects unproven delayed receipt.2. Econ Antri Ltd. VS Rom Industries Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 783: Receipt triggers 15 days.3. Saketh India LTD. VS India Securities LTD. - 1999 2 Supreme 389: Saketh on excluding starting day.4. Gajanand Burange VS Laxmi Chand Goyal - 2022 8 Supreme 434: Premature complaint invalid.5. Anwar Saifi VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 443: Presumption via reg post.
#NIACT138, #ChequeBounce, #LegalInsights
15. The complainant stated that the accused showed him a plot near PNB, Solan and its price was settled as ₹4.00 lacs. The accused assured to get the sale deed registered on 12.6.2007. ... The complainant sent a notice to the accused asking him to repay the amount within 15 days from the date of the service of the notice. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he fail....
Then the accused was required to make the payment of the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice i.e. on or before 07.05.2020, since 22.04.2020, the date of receipt of notice has to be excluded, while calculating 15 day's time under Section 138(c) of the NI Act. ... That is to say, while counting the period of 15 days to make payment, the date on which the legal notice was #H....
Section 27 of the GC Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. ... After one year, the complainant demanded his money back, then on 10.09.2015, a check of rupees Rs. 3,50,000/- drawn at Punjab National Bank numbered as 958870, and another check dated 20.09.2015 of Rs. 3,50,000/-, numbered is 958871 were given at the house of the complainant by the applicant-accused ... Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by ....
Any drawer who claims that he had not received the notice sent by the post, can within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of complaint under section 138 of Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had make payment within 15 days of receipt of summons ... Admittedly, notice was sent by the speed post on 07.01.2001 and the complaint was filed on 20.04.2001. Even if the presumption of ....
Any drawer who claims that he had not received the notice sent by the post, can within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of complaint under section 138 of Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had make payment within 15 days ... Admittedly, notice was sent by the speed post on 07.01.2001 and the complaint was filed on 20.04.2001. Even if the presumption of deemed service within....
The date when the judgment is reserved. 13.10.2025 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced. 08.01.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded. 08.01.2026 4. ... As already mentioned above, the sample was sent after a delay of 9 days from the date of the alleged recovery, which has not been explained and this fact further weakens the prosecution case. ... Accordingly, the judgment dated 20.09.2004 passed by the learned Additio....
Even if, in a case he has not received a notice by post, it is open for the accused to make payment of cheque amount within a period of 15 days of summons of the Court in respect of complaint under section 138 of the N.I. ... Mishra submitted that the complainant had urged in the complaint that the notice was sent through Registered Post A.D. and the accused had not accepted the same. While the notice sent under U.P.C. was received ....
a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;" 6. ... That the complainant served a legal notice dated 16.04.2022 through r1is counsel Vide Speed post dated 16.04.2022, the accused also served through WhatsApp Number 9811144797 upon the accused on 21.04.2022 and same was seen by the accused on same day i.e. 21.#HL....
Thus, under law, the complainant has to wait for 15 days after accused received the notice. This waiting period is obviously to give the accused an opportunity to pay the cheque amount and thereby to avoid prosecution. ... If he fails to pay within 15 days, then within 30 days thereafter the complainant has to file the complaint. Therefore, the limitation of 30 days commences immediately after 15 ....
4. On 15.04.2002, ASI Teja Singh (PW-4), accompanied by other police officials, was present near Village Kalkh in a Government jeep bearing registration No.PB-25-6798. Around 7:15 AM, a truck bearing registration No.PB-12B-1497, approached from Village Majri. ... Furthermore, the dispatch of samples on 18.04.2002 and their receipt at FSL four days later on 22.04.2002 remains unexplained. The interpolations in Exhi....
10. Thus it has to be held that period of expiry of one month or months, as the case may be, shall be decided on fixing the date corresponding to the date upon which the period starts, that is to say, if period of one month starts from 15.01.2025, one month would be completed on 15.02.2025 (but actually 32 days). The period of one month starts from 15.02.2025 ends on 15.03.2025 even though the days are only 29, (since 2025 is not leap year, but if the year is leap year, then it will be 30 days). Similarly, when the period of one month would start on 15.04.2025, the same would end o....
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and I.A.No.1966 of 2004 stands restored back to file with direction to the learned Principal Sub Judge, Thalassery, to proceed further in accordance with law, after impleading the legal representatives of the respondent. 9. Therefore, it was held that when the period prescribed is three months (as contrasted from 90 days) from a specific date, the said period would expire in the third month on the date corresponding to the date upon which the period starts. As a result, depending on the months, it may mean 90 days or 91 days or 92 days or 89 days. #H....
In the present case, notice returned unclaimed and received by complainant on 14.09.2000. If this date is taken to be due service of notice by accused-applicant then 15 days' time would expire on 29.09.2000.
Hence, the complainant has issued a statutory notice on 29.03.2003 calling upon the accused to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. He further stated that though, the accused had received the said notice on 03.04.2003, he did not pay any amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and hence, he filed a private complaint to punish the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
It is also stated by PW10 that she received the fresh blood samples of the three accused on 15.09.2015 and that of accused no. It is these samples that were used for DNA profiling and report by PW10. In the said deposition of PW10, it is clearly stated that she received blood samples of three accused i.e. accused No.1 Atul Hatwar, accused No.2 Jitendra Gabhane and accused No.3 Ishwar Tikapache on 15.09.2015 and further that she received fresh blood sample of accused No.4 Vijay Nagfase on 08.10.2015. But, there is no evidence on record about when and where ....
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
