Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Sunil Kumar Bhagat VS State of Jharkhand - Current Civil Cases
"].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 ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3475"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Del) 2037"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1371"]- ["2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1116"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1373"]- ["2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 2003"]- ["2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 2002"]- ["2025 0 Supreme(P&H) 367"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 936"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 693"]- ["
Sunil Kumar Bhagat VS State of Jharkhand - Current Civil Cases
"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 914"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Del) 750"]- ["2025 7 Supreme 159"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Del) 372"]- ["2022 0 Supreme(Del) 2037"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(MP) 811"]- ["2025 0 Supreme(Del) 320"]
are a common issue in business transactions, often leading to legal battles under (). But what exactly makes a 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 , , or outright , 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 under must be in writing, sent to the (or for companies), demanding the specific cheque amount (not just the loan), within of , to the correct address, with and service (or on refusal). Delays can't be condoned, and defects invalidate the notice, leading to discharge or . 2001 1 Supreme 24
Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla - (2001)
1999 9 Supreme 469Here are the core elements:- Proper Addressing: To the /signatory; service on a signing director suffices, even if company-related. 2001 1 Supreme 24
Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla - (2001)
1999 9 Supreme 469- Clear Demand: Specific cheque amount; vague or loan-focused notices fail. 2024 0 Supreme(UK) 316 2003 7 Supreme 741- Proof of Service: Complainant proves dispatch to right address and service. 2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 689 2002 0 Supreme(J&K) 194 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 1896- Strict Timelines: Notice within of dishonour info; after from receipt/refusal, within —no delays allowed. 2005 0 Supreme(J&K) 3031993 0 Supreme(P&H) 861
The notice targets the . For companies, addressing the 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. 2001 1 Supreme 24
Rajneesh Aggarwal VS Amit J. Bhalla - (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. 1999 9 Supreme 469But notice only to the company (ignoring the individual ) fails: the notice issued by the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of as it was not addressed to the of the cheque, but to a company.
In firm cases, notice to proprietor individually may not suffice if cheque was firm-issued.
Demand the exact cheque amount clearly within . Vague notices flop: A notice under Section 138 must clearly demand the cheque amount; ambiguity can invalidate proceedings. 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. 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. 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 , 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 .Complainant proves sending via to correct address and receipt/service. Presumptions (, ) 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. 2002 0 Supreme(J&K) 194 Wrong address? : complainant sent to incorrect address and failed to prove service. 2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 689 Burden on complainant: The burden of proof is on the complainant to show the service of notice. 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 1896 must aver service.
Shakti Travel & Tours VS State of Bihar & Anr. - (2000)
-Whether the delay which has crept in serving ... can be condoned?-Held-No. 2005 0 Supreme(J&K) 303 Premature filing quashed: was filed on 13th day from the date of refusal... premature.
Late complaints barred: was filed more than one month after the expiry of ... barred by limitation. 1993 0 Supreme(P&H) 861
From other cases:- Quashing possible if process abuse, e.g., wrong party liable. 2021 0 Supreme(Guj) 359- under s.118/139 holds, but accused can rebut debt existence; books not always fatal. 2021 0 Supreme(Del) 261 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1270- Firm cheques: liability specific.
To bulletproof your notice:1. Address to /signatory at correct/official address.2. Demand cheque amount precisely (+ costs if detailed).3. Send / within ; keep receipts/tracking.4. File post- from service/refusal, within , pleading service.5. Avoid vagueness or consolidation pitfalls.
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
