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…!
If the notice is issued beyond 30 days from the receipt of bank intimation, the complaint under Section 138 becomes invalid ["Naresh Kumar vs Sandeep Kumar - Himachal Pradesh"] ["Amit Kumar Mishra VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Delhi"] ["M. G. Alexander VS Biju Chellappan - Kerala"] ["Ramkrit Jadav VS Samir Kumar Das - Calcutta"].
Insights and Main Points:
Failure to issue the notice within this period leads to dismissal of the complaint or quashing of proceedings for non-compliance with statutory requirements ["Naresh Kumar vs Sandeep Kumar - Himachal Pradesh"] ["Amit Kumar Mishra VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Naresh Kumar vs Sandeep Kumar - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["M. G. Alexander VS Biju Chellappan - Kerala"]- ["Jitendra Bhati VS Santosh Devi - Delhi"]- ["Amit Kumar Mishra VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Delhi"]- ["Ramkrit Jadav VS Samir Kumar Das - Calcutta"]
Cheque bounces are a common issue in business transactions, often leading to legal battles under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). One critical question that arises is: Within how many days of cheque bounce intimation given by the bank must a notice under Section 138 be issued, particularly in the year 2014? Getting this right can mean the difference between a valid prosecution and a time-barred complaint. This post breaks down the legal requirements, judicial interpretations, and practical advice based on established precedents.
Section 138 criminalizes the dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds or other specified reasons, treating it as a punishable offence. The process involves three key steps:- Presentation of the cheque and its return unpaid.- Issuance of a demand notice to the drawer.- Failure to pay within 15 days of receiving the notice, triggering the offence.
The demand notice is pivotal, and its timeliness is strictly governed by statute. Typically, it must be sent within a prescribed period from the bank's intimation of dishonour.
The main legal finding is clear: the notice under Section 138 must be issued within 30 days of receiving intimation from the bank about the cheque's dishonour. This period starts from the date of receipt of the bank's information, not the date of dishonour or presentation. Failure to comply renders the prosecution invalid or barred. Uniplas India LTD. VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2001 5 Supreme 161
Key points include:- Statutory mandate: Demand notice within 30 days of bank intimation. Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777- Starting point: Date of receipt by the payee/holder, excluding the dishonour date. Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. VS Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund - 2007 7 Supreme 575- Consequences of delay: Complaint not maintainable if notice issued after 30 days. Uniplas India LTD. VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2001 5 Supreme 161Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. VS Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund - 2007 7 Supreme 575
Courts have consistently held that the 30-day period begins from the date of receipt of intimation from the bank about the dishonour of the cheque. Uniplas India LTD. VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2001 5 Supreme 161Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777
Indian courts have reinforced this timeline through landmark rulings. For instance, judgments emphasize that the notice must be issued within 30 days of the bank's intimation, and the receipt date is critical—secondary considerations like the drawer's receipt of notice do not alter the starting point. Uniplas India LTD. VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2001 5 Supreme 161Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777
In cases where notices were delayed, prosecutions were quashed. One ruling noted: If the notice is issued after 30 days, the prosecution becomes barred or the complaint is not maintainable. Uniplas India LTD. VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2001 5 Supreme 161Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. VS Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund - 2007 7 Supreme 575
Although some documents do not explicitly reference 2014, the principles are universal and applied consistently, including that year. The requirement remained that the notice under Section 138 must be issued within 30 days of the bank's intimation. No specific changes altered this for 2014 transactions. Uniplas India LTD. VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2001 5 Supreme 161
However, historical context from other sources highlights evolution. Earlier cases, like those from 1998, operated under a 15-day limit: under section 138(b), demand has to be made within 15 days - Subsequently, it was amended to 30 days. Padma Financiers VS V. S. Baliga S/o Sanjeev Baliga - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 175 By 2014, judicial interpretations aligned with the 30-day standard as per prevailing precedents. Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777
A key judicial clarification involves computation. Under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the day of receipt of bank intimation is excluded. For example, if intimation is received on Day 1, the 30-day period starts from Day 2. Date of receipt of intimation from bank has to be excluded for sending notice under Section 138(b) of the Act. K. C. Rajesh VS T. K. Santhakumar
In a 1999 intimation case (notice on 27.7.1999), excluding the receipt date (12.7.1999) made it timely on the 15th day under the then-regime, extendable analogously. This principle holds: the first day of starting point of cause of action has to be excluded. K. C. Rajesh VS T. K. Santhakumar
Courts lack power to condone delays in issuing the notice itself. There is no power to condone delay in issuing notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of N I Act. B. K. Sarkar VS State of GujaratB. K. Sarkar VS State of GujaratSanjay Gawalani VS Sunil Satwani
One case quashed proceedings for a one-day delay: When the notice has not been issued beyond 30 days of receipt of intimation from the bank, complaint under Section 138... is not maintainable. B. K. Sarkar VS State of Gujarat Delay condonation under Section 142 applies only to filing complaints, not notices. B. K. Sarkar VS State of Gujarat
In security cheque scenarios, timelines remain strict even for banks. Versha Negi VS State of NCT Delhi Through Sho Ps Shakarpur Delhi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 5867
To safeguard your case:- Act promptly: Issue notice within 30 days of bank intimation.- Document everything: Retain proof of receipt date (e.g., bank memo, postal records).- Calculate correctly: Exclude the intimation day; use calendars meticulously.- Seek alternatives if delayed: Explore civil remedies, but Section 138 proceedings may fail.- Consult professionals: Verify with case-specific facts.
Maintaining records prevents disputes: Ensure that the notice is issued within 30 days of receiving the bank’s intimation regarding dishonour. Uniplas India LTD. VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2001 5 Supreme 161
In 2014, as in other years, the notice under Section 138 had to be issued within 30 days of the bank's cheque bounce intimation. Delays are fatal, with no condonation available, and computation excludes the first day. By understanding these rules—bolstered by precedents like Uniplas India LTD. VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2001 5 Supreme 161, Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 777, and insights on exclusions K. C. Rajesh VS T. K. Santhakumar—you can navigate cheque dishonour cases effectively.
Key Takeaways:- Timeline: 30 days from bank receipt.- No delays tolerated; exclude Day 1.- Applicable universally, including 2014.
This post provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation, as outcomes may vary by facts and jurisdiction.
#Section138 #ChequeBounce #NIACT
Section 138 of the N.I. ... (A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Quashing of complaint - The petitioner sought to quash a complaint under ... Act, asserting that the notice was issued beyond the 30-day period stipulated in Section 138(b) - The complainant alleged dishonor ... Indisputably, the notice was issued on the 31st day and not within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of #HL_S....
Negotiable Instruments - Section 138 - NI Act - The court interpreted the statutory notice period under ... Section 138(b) of the NI Act, emphasizing the exclusion of the first day and inclusion of the last day in computing the notice period ... Result: The appeal is allowed, restoring the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act. ... Now let us examine whether the statutory notice under Section 138 (b) of the N.I ....
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138, 142 – Discharge ... The complainant was informed regarding dishonour of cheque and intimation was given in this regard on 19.12.2017 and again it was dishonoured on 06.02.2018 which was presented before the bank on assurance given by the petitioner. ... Therefore, the complaint under Section 142(b) should be filed on or before or within, 30 days ....
NI Act - Quashing of Complaint Case - Section 138 Fact of the Case: The petitioner seeks quashing of the Complaint Case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) pending ... The court also noted that the petitioner was not the signatory of the subject cheques and the liability under Section 138 NI Act ... Indisputably, the notice was issued on the 31st day and not within a period of thirty days#HL_....
Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138, (b), 142(b) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 – Criminal Procedure ... Finding of the Court: It is to be noted that complaint was filed in year 1998 - Infact, under section 138( ... Appeal against acquittal - Appeal arises out of judgment passed wherein learned JMFC acquitted accused for offences punishable under Section ... It is to be noted that the complaint was filed in the year 1998. Infact, under section 138#....
Section 138 of the Act shall apply unless (i) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it was drawn or within a period of its validity whichever is earlier; (ii) payee or holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be ... the said amount of money to the payee or to the holder in due course of the cheque, within 15 days of receipt of the said notice.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - General Clauses Act , 1897 - Section 9 - common rule - ... (1994 (1) KLT 441) : (1994 Cri LJ 3439 (Ker)) and came to the conclusion that notice must be issued within 15 days of receipt of intimation and in this case the notice was issued on the 15th day of receipt of intimation as such it is out of time. ... Reghunathan Chettiar (2015(3) KLT (SN) 42 Case No. 56) and ....
The bank then filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, and the trial court summoned the petitioner. ... Section 138 NI Act - Quashing of Criminal Complaint - 138, 142 NI Act Fact of the ... The court also emphasized the statutory provision of Section 138 NI Act, which deems the drawer to have committed an offence if the ... Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice dated 03.02.2018, calling upon the petitioner to pay the ....
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Prosecution for ... 138 and Section 142(b) of the Act, the same principle can be extended to the period mentioned in Clause(b) of Proviso to Section ... For that purpose, it is necessary to consider Section 138 of the Act and Section 9 of the 1994 (1) KLT 441 and came to the conclusion that notice must be issued within 15 days of receipt of intimation#HL_EN....
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Quashing of Complaint Case - Kamlesh Kumar vs. ... Issues: Quashing of the complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. ... 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. ... Indisputably, the notice was issued on the 31st day and not within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of intimation from the bank. ......
It was instituted within three days of Notice under Section 13(2) by the Bank issued as 27th August, 2014. In the Suit Exhibit 5 application was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. Learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, Mirzapur, granted injunction by his order dated 26th December, 2014 directing to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property-being the very property subject matter of the impugned order by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SERFAESI Act.
Act by condoning delay of one day in issuing notice by the complainant as provided in proviso (b) of Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act. When the notice has not been issued beyond 30 days of receipt of intimation from the bank, complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. It is submitted that undisputedly the notice was not issued within 30 days, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the complaint filed by the respondent and the impugned order, whereby the cognizance was taken be quashed.
When the notice has not been issued beyond 30 day of receipt of intimation from the bank, complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Under the circumstances, impugned, complaint/criminal case itself is not maintainable and the same requires to be quashed and set aside by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Act by condoning delay of one day in issuing notice by the original complainant as provided under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act.
Under the circumstances, impugned complaint criminal case itself is not maintainable, and the same requires to be quashed and set aside by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Act by condoning delay of one day in issuing notice by the original complainant as provided under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act. When the notice has not been issued beyond 30 days of receipt of intimation from the Bank, complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.
Obviously, based on said notice dated 24th September, 1994, the respondent No.2 did not have cause of action for launching the prosecution of petitioner under Section 138. To be noted that aforementioned decisions pertain to condoning the delay in filing the complaint and not the delay in serving the demand notice under clause (b) of said Section 138. Serving of notice within 15 days of the receipt of intimation regarding dishonour of cheque by the payee and failure to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice issued under clause (b) of Section 138 by the drawer are to prece....
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
