Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Non-compliance with the notice requirement, such as sending a notice with incorrect details or after the statutory period, can lead to quashing of the complaint or dismissal of charges ["Golden Agro Foods VS Sahil Trading Company - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Aryan Biological Corporation VS Vishwakarma Metal Box - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Top Filling Point Proprietor Rakesh Agrawal VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Shyam Sunder Soni VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]- ["Prashant Chaudhary VS Ritesh Kumar Singh - Allahabad"]- ["Lakshmi Industries VS Subir Dass - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Park Polymers VS Subir Dass - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Gian Chand Garg vs Harpal Singh - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Abhishek Srivastva VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["Prashant Chandra VS State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. - Allahabad"]- ["Sunil Kumar Bhagat VS State of Jharkhand - Current Civil Cases"]- ["Sunil Kumar Bhagat, S/o Late Sheopujan Bhagat VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["Honey Verma VS Piyush Nautiyal - Delhi"]- ["Kaveri Plastics VS Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul - Supreme Court"]- ["Deepak Nagar VS State And Anr - Delhi"]- ["Aryan Biological Corporation VS Vishwakarma Metal Box - Delhi"]- ["Manoj Morya VS Anita Minj - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Barun Bhanot vs Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt Ltd - Delhi"]
Cheque bounces are a common issue in business transactions, often leading to legal battles under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). But what exactly makes a demand notice ready and valid? If you're wondering about the requirements for a valid Section 138 negotiable notice, you're not alone. A flawed notice can result in acquittal, quashing of proceedings, or outright dismissal, costing time and money. This post breaks down the strict rules, backed by court rulings, to help you understand how to issue a compliant notice.
A valid demand notice under Section 138 NI Act must be in writing, sent to the drawer (or signatory director for companies), demanding the specific cheque amount (not just the loan), within 15 days of bank dishonour info, to the correct address, with proof of dispatch and service (or deemed service on refusal). Delays can't be condoned, and defects invalidate the notice, leading to discharge or acquittal. Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla - 2001 1 Supreme 24Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla - Dishonour Of Cheque (2001)Bilakchand Gyanchand Company VS A. Chinnaswami - 1999 9 Supreme 469
Here are the core elements:- Proper Addressing: To the drawer/signatory; service on a signing director suffices, even if company-related. Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla - 2001 1 Supreme 24Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla - Dishonour Of Cheque (2001)Bilakchand Gyanchand Company VS A. Chinnaswami - 1999 9 Supreme 469- Clear Demand: Specific cheque amount; vague or loan-focused notices fail. Padma Sharma VS State of Uttarakhand - 2024 0 Supreme(UK) 316K. R. Indira VS G. Adinarayana - 2003 7 Supreme 741- Proof of Service: Complainant proves dispatch to right address and service. Jitendra Kumar Singh VS State of Jharkhand - 2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 689Subhash Chander VS Pritam Singh Machinewala - 2002 0 Supreme(J&K) 194Ramesh Chand VS Ravinder Singh Chandel - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 1896- Strict Timelines: Notice within 15 days of dishonour info; complaint after 15 days from receipt/refusal, within 1 month—no delays allowed. Fayaz Ahmad Kishtwari VS Gh. Hassan Bhat - 2005 0 Supreme(J&K) 303Sri Niranjan Sahoo VS Utkal Sanitary, BBSR - Crimes (1998)K. D. Sales Corpn. VS Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. - 1993 0 Supreme(P&H) 861
The notice targets the drawer. For companies, addressing the signatory director at their official address works: Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, served in the name of director of Company who signed the cheque on behalf of Company is proper notice. Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla - 2001 1 Supreme 24Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla - Dishonour Of Cheque (2001) Similarly, We see no infirmity in the notice issued under Section 138 addressed to A. Chinnaswami, who was a signatory of the said cheques. Bilakchand Gyanchand Company VS A. Chinnaswami - 1999 9 Supreme 469
But notice only to the company (ignoring the individual drawer) fails: the notice issued by the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act as it was not addressed to the drawer of the cheque, but to a company. MAYFAIR KNITTING INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI VS G. P. VIJYAKUMARA - Dishonour Of Cheque (2000) In firm cases, notice to proprietor individually may not suffice if cheque was firm-issued. Gurdas VS Het Ram
Demand the exact cheque amount clearly within 15 days. Vague notices flop: A notice under Section 138 must clearly demand the cheque amount; ambiguity can invalidate proceedings. Padma Sharma VS State of Uttarakhand - 2024 0 Supreme(UK) 316 What is necessary is making of a demand for the amount covered by the bounced cheque which is conspicuously absent. K. R. Indira VS G. Adinarayana - 2003 7 Supreme 741
Consolidated notices can work if cheque-specific: if the consolidated notice is found to provide sufficient information... and there was a specific demand for the payment of the sum covered by the cheque... may not invalidate the same. K. R. Indira VS G. Adinarayana - 2003 7 Supreme 741
Higher demands (e.g., interest, costs) don't invalidate if cheque details are clear and additional claims specified: 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 specifically mentioned. R. Hanumantharaya VS A. P. Krishnakumar S/o. A. R. Parameshwaran Even lesser demands post-part payment are fine if explained, avoiding unjust enrichment.
Complainant proves sending via registered post to correct address and receipt/service. Presumptions (General Clauses Act s.27, Evidence Act s.114) are rebuttable: It is necessary for the complainant to prove the facts constituting the sending of notice and its receipt. Notice should not be deemed to have been served as a matter of course. Subhash Chander VS Pritam Singh Machinewala - 2002 0 Supreme(J&K) 194 Wrong address? Acquittal: complainant sent to incorrect address and failed to prove service. Jitendra Kumar Singh VS State of Jharkhand - 2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 689 Burden on complainant: The burden of proof is on the complainant to show the service of notice. Ramesh Chand VS Ravinder Singh Chandel - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 1896 Complaint must aver service. Shakti Travel & Tours VS State of Bihar & Anr. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2000)
Demand Notice-Whether the delay which has crept in serving demand notice... can be condoned?-Held-No. Fayaz Ahmad Kishtwari VS Gh. Hassan Bhat - 2005 0 Supreme(J&K) 303 Premature filing quashed: Complaint was filed on 13th day from the date of refusal... premature. Sri Niranjan Sahoo VS Utkal Sanitary, BBSR - Crimes (1998) Late complaints barred: complaint was filed more than one month after the expiry of 15 days... barred by limitation. K. D. Sales Corpn. VS Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. - 1993 0 Supreme(P&H) 861
From other cases:- Quashing possible if process abuse, e.g., wrong party liable. Dipikaben Alpesh Patel VS State of Gujarat - 2021 Supreme(Guj) 359- Presumption under s.118/139 holds, but accused can rebut debt existence; books not always fatal. G. D. Kataria VS AVL Leasing & Finance Ltd. - 2021 Supreme(Del) 261Ashalatha VS K. Yakub - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 1270- Firm cheques: Drawer liability specific. Gurdas VS Het Ram
To bulletproof your notice:1. Address to drawer/signatory at correct/official address.2. Demand cheque amount precisely (+ costs if detailed).3. Send registered post/AD within 15 days; keep receipts/tracking.4. File complaint post-15 days from service/refusal, within 1 month, pleading service.5. Avoid vagueness or consolidation pitfalls.
Trial courts enforce strictly; appeals often quash on defects.
This is general information based on court rulings and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case, as outcomes depend on facts. Stay compliant to enforce cheque payments effectively.
References (select key cases listed in analysis).
#Section138 #ChequeBounce #NIACT
For the sake of ready reference, Section 27 of G.C. Act is extracted below: "27. Meaning of service by post. ... of the notice. ... The learned court below heard the complainant and summoned the accused under section 138 of the NI Act. ... This Court then explained the nature of presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and under Section 27 of the GC Act and pointed out how these two presumptions are to be employed while considering the question of service of notice under Section 138 of the NI ....
Before delving into the issue, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant parts of section 138 and section 18 of the N.I. Act for ready reference: Section 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. ... The complainant issued statutory notice required under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. ... The fact that the legal notice dated 25.06.2014 has been given for Rs. 7,55,125/- by itself does not in....
For the sake of ready reference, Section 27 of G.C. Act is extracted below: "27. Meaning of service by post. ... The submission of the petitioner is that there is nothing to suggest that demand notice was served on him, therefore, the essential ingredients for taking cognizance under section 138 of the N.I. Act were missing. ... of the notice. ... This Court then explained the nature of presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and under Section 27 of the GC Act and pointed out how these two presumptions are to ....
For ready reference, the said provision is appended as below: '(b) Such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause-of-action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138' [Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken ... under Section 138. ... Having said that, every time a cheque is presented in the manner and within the time stipulated under the proviso to Section 138 followed by a notice within the meaning of clause (b) of proviso to Section 138#H....
For ready reference, the said provision is appended as below: '(b) Such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause-of-action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138' [Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken ... under Section 138. ... Having said that, every time a cheque is presented in the manner and within the time stipulated under the proviso to Section 138 followed by a notice within the meaning of clause (b) of proviso to Section 138#H....
As noticed above, the entire purpose of requiring a notice is to give an opportunity to the drawer to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of service of notice and thereby free himself from the penal consequences of Section 138. ... of the notice. ... It is, therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption available under Section 27 of the Act, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accus....
For the sake of ready reference, Section 27 of the GC Act is extracted below: “27. Meaning of service by post. ... notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act.” ... under section 138 of N.I. ... against him under Section 138 of N.I. ... As noticed above, the entire purpose of requiring a notice is to give an opportunity to the drawer to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of service of notice and thereby free h....
The provision of Section 138 (b) of the Act, 1881 deals with the demand notice which is given by the holder of the cheque. When we read Clause (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 138, there is specifically mentioned, a whole word means “said amount of money”. ... In view of the above discussion, I could say that in a demand notice if other amounts is mentioned with the cheque amount in a separate portion in detail, the said notice can not be faulted in a legal term of the Section 138....
138 of N.I. ... 138 & 142 of N.I. ... After going through Ext.6 and 6/1 it is clear that legal notice was sent to the appellant on 19.12.07. As per clause(c) of section 138 of N.I. ... A legal notice dated 17.01.2001 under section 138 of proviso (b) of the N.I. Act was sent by speed post. The complaint petition alleging commission of an offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, however was filed on 20.04.2001. ... Therefore, the observance of stipulating in proviso (b) t....
138 of N.I. ... After going through Ext.6 and 6/1 it is clear that legal notice was sent to the appellant on 19.12.07. As per clause(c) of section 138 of N.I. ... The entire purpose of requiring a notice to give an opportunity to the drawer to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of service of notice and thereby free himself from the penal consequences of section 138. ... A legal notice dated 17.01.2001 under section 138 of proviso (b) of the N.I. Ac....
The very object of the notice under Section 138 of the N.I. 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.I. Act discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India V. Saxons Farms and others reported in (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 221 which was referred in Suman Sethi’s case (supra) also, is to give a chance to the drawer of the cheque to rectify his omission.
Act was sent through R.P.A.D., which was received by the accused on 12.01.2019. The said legal notice was replied on 29.01.2019, whereby the accused denied the contention raised by the present respondent no.2 in his Demand Notice and stated of taking a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of November, 2015 for a period of one year at the monthly interest of 5%. It is stated that the said Cheque of 24.12.2018 was deposited by the respondent no.2 in his Corporation Bank, Sudan Branch, Account No.346000101000161, which was dishonoured on 28.12.2018 with endorsement “Today’s Opening Balance Insuff....
(c) Notice as required under Section 138 of the N.I. (b) When the respondent deposited these cheques they were returned as unpaid/dishonored for the reason "Funds Insufficient". Act was issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner herein to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the notice. The payment was not received and a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I.
Thus, the guilt against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The legal notice as required under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has also been issued to the accused for which, he did not respond by making the payment of the cheque amount. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument submitted that, the accused was the drawer of the cheque at Ex.P-1, which when presented for realisation, came to be dishonoured for the reason of insufficiency of fund.
The statutory notice, as required under Section 138 of the N.I. Accordingly, to establish that the accused was the proprietor of M/s Shobha Apples Garden and was responsible being in charge of the business of firm, when the cheuqe in question was issued, no evidence has been produce by the complainant. Act should have been issued to M/s Shobha Apples Garden through its proprietor, however the notice was issued to the accused in his individual capacity.
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
