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…!
Compliance with Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) - The main requirement is that the demand notice must specify the amount due and be served within 30 days of dishonor; the notice should clearly demand payment in respect of the cheque amount. The absence of the date of payment in the notice does not automatically render it invalid, provided the notice correctly mentions the cheque amount and demands payment within the prescribed period. ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 693"], ["MAHESH VIDHANI Vs M/S SUN DIESELS /C P. ASSOCIATE - Chhattisgarh"], ["MAHESH VIDHANI Vs M/S SUN DIESELS /C P. ASSOCIATE - Chhattisgarh"]
Validity of the demand notice without mention of payment date - Courts have held that if the notice mentions the cheque amount and the demand is made within the stipulated period, the notice remains valid even if it does not specify the date of payment. The critical element is the demand for payment within 30 days of receipt of the notice, not the inclusion of a specific payment date. ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 693"], ["MAHESH VIDHANI Vs M/S SUN DIESELS /C P. ASSOCIATE - Chhattisgarh"], ["MAHESH VIDHANI Vs M/S SUN DIESELS /C P. ASSOCIATE - Chhattisgarh"]
Service of notice and proof thereof - The law emphasizes that the notice must be properly served, and the burden of proof regarding service lies with the complainant. If the service of notice is not proved (e.g., through acknowledgment card or examination of postal records), the complaint may be dismissed. However, the absence of explicit mention of the date of receipt or payment in the notice alone does not invalidate the notice if service is properly established. ["2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 914"], ["
Sunil Kumar Bhagat VS State of Jharkhand - Current Civil Cases
"], ["2022 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 9965"], ["2024 0 Supreme(J&K) 72"], ["Qasim Ali Bhutto VS Abdul Aziz - Crimes
"]Impact of not mentioning the date of payment in the notice - The main insight from case law is that the omission of the date of payment in the demand notice does not necessarily make the notice invalid or non-maintainable. The critical requirement is that the notice demands the amount due and is served within the statutory period. Courts have upheld notices lacking the payment date where other conditions are satisfied. ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 693"], ["MAHESH VIDHANI Vs M/S SUN DIESELS /C P. ASSOCIATE - Chhattisgarh"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11962"]
Analysis and Conclusion:Based on the legal precedents, a Section 138 complaint remains maintainable even if the demand notice does not specify the date of payment, as long as the notice clearly demands the cheque amount within the statutory period and is properly served. The essential elements are the demand for payment, proper service, and compliance with time limits, not the inclusion of a specific payment date. Therefore, the absence of the payment date in the notice does not automatically invalidate the complaint under Section 138 NI Act.
cases under (NI Act) are commonplace in India, often arising from business transactions gone sour. A frequent point of contention? Does the must specify the date of payment or debt discharge for the complaint to hold water? If you're a chasing a bounced cheque or a defending against a complaint, this question can make or break your case.
In this post, we dive into the legal nuances, drawing from and rulings. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your situation.
Section 138 criminalizes the due to or other reasons, provided certain conditions are met. To prosecute:
The emphasizes a written demand for the said amount of money – interpreted as the cheque amount (2008 0 Supreme(All) 1532) 2023 0 Supreme(All) 443.
The notice is pivotal. Courts have ruled it must:
As held, the demanded in writing from the of the cheque the payment of the amount of money due under the cheque to ; and (5) such a notice of payment is made within a period of from the date of the receipt of the information (MAHESH VIDHANI Vs M/S SUN DIESELS /C P. ASSOCIATE - Chhattisgarh_CG_CRMP_1385_2023) 2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 312.
Vague or fail. For instance, demanding a loan amount instead of the cheque figure invalidates it: the notice is not valid, as the demand was not made in lieu of cheque amount but for the loan amount (2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 291).
No, it's not strictly required. The validity hinges on demanding the cheque amount and timeline compliance, not the payment or discharge date.
Key finding: The validity of a complaint under Section 138... does not strictly require the date of payment to be mentioned in the or complaint, provided that the notice complies with the (2008 0 Supreme(All) 1532) 2023 0 Supreme(All) 443.
Courts focus on said amount as the cheque sum (Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., 2008 0 Supreme(All) 1532; Suman Sethi, 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1023). Absence of payment date alone doesn't doom the complaint if other boxes are ticked (1998 0 Supreme(Mad) 1469).
The law does not explicitly mandate that the must mention the date of actual payment or the date on which the debt was discharged. The focus is on demanding the cheque amount and complying with the prescribed timelines (2008 0 Supreme(All) 1532) 2023 0 Supreme(All) 443.
The stressed: Demand must match the cheque amount, not higher/lower. Vague demands invite dismissal, but payment date omission? Not fatal.
)
Demand for an amount different from the cheque amount renders the notice invalid. Yet, no payment date? Generally okay.
Read notice holistically – it must demand said amount. Omnibus phrasing fails.
From recent cases: Unless a notice is served in conformity with of the Act, the would not be maintainable... service of a notice making demand of the payment of the amount of cheque as is evidence from the use of the phraseology 'payment of the said amount of money' (2019 0 Supreme(Tri) 40) 2019 0 Supreme(Tri) 38.
In another, courts set aside where notice properly demanded cheque amount, upholding despite defenses (2019 0 Supreme(Tri) 40).
These align: Clarity on cheque amount > payment date (2008 0 Supreme(All) 1532) 1998 0 Supreme(Mad) 1469.
Watch out for pitfalls:
) 1998 0 Supreme(Mad) 1469.
When the proviso applies, the main Section would not. The parliament while enacting the said provision consciously imposed certain conditions (2019 0 Supreme(Tri) 38).
Non-NI Act overlaps, like environmental or tender cases, underscore but don't alter Section 138 basics (2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3064) 2021 0 Supreme(Del) 2442. Civil disputes don't auto-quash criminal if ingredients met (2015 0 Supreme(Pat) 1051).
To bulletproof your notice:
For drawers: Challenge on valid grounds like mismatch, not mere date absence.
.
Final Note: Courts interpret notices contextually. While payment date omission is typically non-fatal, tailor to facts. This overview draws from judgments like 2008 0 Supreme(All) 1532, 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1023, 2019 0 Supreme(Tri) 40 – seek professional advice for case-specific strategy.
Stay compliant, avoid bounces, and let the law work for you.
#Section138, #ChequeBounce, #NIACT
the complainant was not compliant with the provisions of section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act. ... Yet demand compensation, interest, etc. in the notice is also made drawer will be exempted from his liability U/s 138 of the Act, 1881, if within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, he makes payment of the sum cov....
the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (4) that the payee demanded in writing from the drawer of the cheque the payment of the amount of money due under the cheque to payee; and (5) such a notice of payment is made within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the information ... Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without....
the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (4) that the payee demanded in writing from the drawer of the cheque the payment of the amount of money due under the cheque to payee; and (5) such a notice of payment is made within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the information ... Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without....
of service of notice, it is not maintainable in the eye of law constituting no offence under section 138 of N.I. ... It is also pertinent to note that the postman of the postal department has also not been examined to prove that whether the notice was served/ delivered upon the appellant or not, if it was served then on which date of ....
of service of notice, it is not maintainable in the eye of law constituting no offence under section 138 of N.I. ... It is also pertinent to note that the postman of the postal department has also not been examined to prove that whether the notice was served/delivered upon the appellant or not, if it was served then on which date of s....
The said cheque was presented to the bank within a period of limitation mentioned in the provisions contained in Section 138 of the N.I.Act and the payee/complainant issued a statutory notice to the applicants and demanded for the payment of the said amount of money. ... However, it is not in dispute that the present applicants have not given any reply to the statutory notice#H....
Therefore, unless the part payment is endorsed on the cheque as per the Section 56 of the NI Act, the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act would not be maintainable once part payment is made by the accused. 30. ... in which an accused in a compliant under Section 138 of the NI Act is expected to discharge his burden to prove his defence. ... Thus, even the evidence re....
Therefore, unless the part payment is endorsed on the cheque as per the Section 56 of the NI Act, the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act would not be maintainable once part payment is made by the accused. 30. ... in which an accused in a compliant under Section 138 of the NI Act is expected to discharge his burden to prove his defence. ... Thus, even the evidence re....
Therefore, the only question to be examined is whether in the notice there was a demand for payment. ... that the notice is not valid, as the demand was not made in lieu of cheque amount but for the loan amount. ... demand was made by the respondent to make the payment of amount in lieu of cheques, figure of Rs. 50,0....
also to be looked into and the Section 138(b) is very clear that the payee or the holder in due course of the Cheque, as the case may be makes a demand from the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque (within 30 days) of the receipt of information ... , where the notice of returning of the Cheque as unpaid was served on the drawer on 29.09.1995, the fi....
Further it is his contention that compliant filed by the Regional Engineer is not maintainable in law. He is not a competent person under Section 19 of the Environmental (Protection) Act.
The Bidder has to evaluate his product against each technical and functional requirement mentioned in the RFP Technical and Functional Requirements document and rate its product and choose a compliance status from among the four namely `compliant', `partially compliant', `compliant in future 'or `not compliant'.
When the proviso applies, the main Section would not. The parliament while enacting the said provision consciously imposed certain conditions. Unless a notice is served in conformity with Proviso(b) appended to Section 138 of the Act, the compliant petition would not be maintainable. One of the conditions was service of a notice making demand of the payment of the amount of cheque as is evidence from the use of the phraseology " payment of the said amount of money".
Unless a notice is served in conformity with Proviso(b) appended to Section 138 of the Act, the compliant petition would not be maintainable. When the proviso applies, the main Section would not. One of the conditions was service of a notice making demand of the payment of the amount of cheque as is evidence from the use of the phraseology "payment of the said amount of money". The parliament while enacting the said provision consciously imposed certain conditions.
The test is whether the allegations in the compliant disclose a criminal offence or not.” As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings.
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
