Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases where the notice was not signed by the advocate, courts have held that as long as the notice was properly issued and served, presumption of service and validity can still be maintained ["K. Suri Babu , Surendra Babu VS U. Ramesh - Telangana"], ["Somnath Paul VS Debasish Dey - Calcutta"].
Legal Notice Service and Presumption - Main points and insights:
Failure to produce proof of service or improper service can lead to the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138, as the element of mandatory service is not satisfied ["Virendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri P. R. Sahu VS Ravi Prakash Thakur, S/o Shri D. R. Thakur - Chhattisgarh"], ["Mohit Chandra Saikia VS State of Assam - 2004 0 Supreme(Gau) 156"].
Implications for cases where the advocate did not sign the notice:
Non-signature by the advocate alone does not invalidate the notice if other proof of proper service and demand is available ["K. Suri Babu , Surendra Babu VS U. Ramesh - Telangana"], ["Somnath Paul VS Debasish Dey - Calcutta"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["K. Suri Babu , Surendra Babu VS U. Ramesh - Telangana"]- ["Md. Amir Hossain -Versus- The State and another - Supreme Court"]- ["M. SETU MADHAVAN VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"]- ["Somnath Paul VS Debasish Dey - Calcutta"]- ["Shiv Kumar Sharma VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Virendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri P. R. Sahu VS Ravi Prakash Thakur, S/o Shri D. R. Thakur - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Mohit Chandra Saikia VS State of Assam - 2004 0 Supreme(Gau) 156"]- ["O.C.DOEGAR vs GANESH DUTT - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["N.Ramadoss vs V.Paramasivam - Madras"]- ["Target Overseas Exports (P) Ltd. v. Iqbal - Kerala"]- ["Jitendra Bhati VS Santosh Devi - Delhi"]- ["Mookaiah and Sons VS Gopalji Agarwal - Madras"]- ["Prashant Chandra VS State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. - Allahabad"]- ["Shabana Akhlakh Udhardar (Shabana Akhlak Ughradar) VS State of Gujarat - Crimes"]- ["Kaveri Plastics VS Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul - Supreme Court"]- ["Barun Bhanot vs Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt Ltd - Delhi"]
In the world of business transactions, cheques are a common payment method, but when they bounce, of the (NI Act) comes into play. A critical step in initiating proceedings is sending a to the drawer demanding payment. But what if this notice is unsigned? Is a 138 not signed by advocate still effective? This question often arises in cheque dishonor cases, and courts have provided nuanced guidance.
This article explores the validity of unsigned notices under , drawing from key judgments and legal principles. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
criminalizes the dishonor of cheques due to insufficient funds or other reasons, provided certain conditions are met. The process typically involves:
The notice must demand payment of the cheque amount and inform the drawer of the dishonor. Failure to comply strictly can lead to acquittal, as seen in cases where proof of notice issuance was lacking .
The notice serves as a chance for the drawer to rectify the issue, protecting honest parties while punishing defaulters. Courts emphasize its mandatory nature: The court found that the complainant failed to prove the issuance of a demanding the cheque amount, as required by the .
Key elements include:- Specific demand for the cheque amount (not just loan amount) .- Proper service, often via registered post .- Authentication to ensure genuineness.
An unsigned under is typically invalid because it lacks authentication. The notice must contain authenticated information, including the signature of the sender, to be legally effective .
Courts have ruled that the notice must inform the drawer of the dishonor of the cheque based on authenticated facts. Without a signature, it fails this purpose. As held: an unsigned notice is no information in the eyes of law and notice sent under of the Act would have to necessarily bear the signature of the sender. In case it does not do so, the notice is invalid in the eyes of the law .
The word inform implies actual, verified facts: the use of the word 'inform' obviously means to indicate the existence of actual facts. Whether the facts are actual or not require certain authentication by the sender. Unless and until a notice is signed, the contents of the notice cannot be said to be authenticated Ramesh Chandra Baregama VS Ramesh Chandra Joshi - Dishonour Of Cheque (2012).
The signature confirms the sender's identity and the notice's genuineness. Without it, the recipient can't verify if it's authentic or fabricated, defeating the statutory intent. This is reinforced across judgments: validity hinges on authentication, generally via the sender's signature .
In practice, proceedings based on unsigned notices may be quashed, as the notice forms the .
While the above establishes a strong preference for signatures, some judgments offer exceptions if the sender is identifiable:
However, these are contextual; the predominant view prioritizes authentication to avoid challenges . Courts won't lightly excuse lapses, especially if presumptions under are rebutted due to procedural flaws.
Businesses and individuals handling cheques should prioritize compliance to avoid dismissals:
In cases like , undelivered notices led to acquittals despite attempts, highlighting service importance.
Generally, an unsigned notice risks invalidity due to lack of authentication, as courts demand signed, verifiable communication to uphold the NI Act's objectives . While exceptions exist where the sender is clear , erring on caution is wise.
Key Takeaways:- Signature authenticates and is typically mandatory.- Unsigned notices often fail, quashing proceedings.- Use agents if needed, but ensure identifiability.- Proper notice prevents rebuttal of presumptions.
Stay compliant to protect your interests in cheque transactions. For personalized guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
References:1. : Core on unsigned notice invalidity.2. : Authentication essentials.3. , Barendra Kumar Bera VS Santanu alias Chottan Mukherjee: Exceptions for identifiable authors.
#Section138 #ChequeBounce #LegalNotice
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused contended that the legal notice marked under Ex.P4 was not signed by the counsel and the same would not amount to valid issuance of notice under Section 138(b) of NI Act. ... Kinetic Finance Ltd., 2004 (2) DCR 233 wherein also notice under Section 138 (b) was not signed by the counsel, observed that: “where notice could be sen....
Despite the notice served upon the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for payment of Tk. 10,72,015, he did not pay the cheque amount. ... He affirmed that the legal notice was served on 19.03.2005 by registered post. The accused also personally received the notice. ... He denied the suggestion that on 09.05.2005 the legal notice was received and that he changed the date of service of the legal #HL_STAR....
4.3 Advocate Mr. Jain further submitted that mandatory legal notice under section 138 of the N.I. Act, has not been served to the present revisionist. The facts on record also proves that legal notice was served to K.N. ... Jain, learned advocate submitted that the legal mandatory necessity of issuance of notice has not been proved, and further there was no legal valid and #HL_S....
notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act. ... Then PW-1 sent legal notice to the accused by registered post with A/D. A/D was duly served upon accused. Copy of legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgment card bear the signature of the accused, marked as exbt.-3 series. ... Rather it was signed by one “Bhattacharya” for D.De. The Ld. Advocate submitted that this is in sh....
strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act." ... Thus, a legal notice dated 17.04.2021 was given by the opposite party no. 2 through registered post, however, the same was alleged to be not accepted by the applicant. ... The applicant did not return the amount nor submitted reply to the legal notice given by opposite party no. 2, therefore, the present complaint was filed on 27.07.2021. ... A person who does not....
and he could escape-from the legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act. ... and he could escape from the legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act. ... The learned Trial Court found that the legal notice was not served upon the accused and the complainant has failed to prove service of notice as contemplated under Section 138 (B) of the NI Act and as such the complaint is not maintainable and acquitted the re....
In the case at hand, complainant has not clearly mentioned in his complaint as to when he sent a legal notice to accused after receiving memo (Ex.P/3) dated 06/03/2004 regarding information about dishonour of cheque. He has not even produced any copy of notice. ... Then, on 06/03/2004, memo vide Ex.P/3 was received from bank to the effect that amount could not be paid due to shortage of funds, upon which, he sent a notice to accused by registered post within the stipu....
This Court finds that there is no material on record regarding the service of legal notice dated 03.03.2008 dispatched by registry on 04.03.2008 upon the petitioner, and it is not the case of the complainant that the legal notice was returned un served or returned for any other reason. ... In view of the legal proposition as discussed above, this Court is of the view that the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Act are lacking in the facts of the present case....
Concededly, a legal notice was issued on 18.03.2010. For appreciation of contention of limitation, Section 138 of the NI Act is extracted hereunder: "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. ... As it is only on receipt of the notice that the accused at his own peril may refuse to pay the amount. Clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 138 therefore must be read together. Issuance of notice would not by itself....
Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court. At this stage, it requires mention that w.e.f. 06.02.2003, the period for issuing legal notice has been increased to 30 days from 15 days. ... The appellant sent a legal notice dated 16.04.1998 to the accused through registered AD posts on 17.04.1998. However, the said notice was received undelivered on 01.05.1998 with the report that the addressee could not be found after several visits. ... After the appellant made....
The point thus raised has to be answered in favour of the appellant.” Counsel for the appellant has, thus, submitted that it has been held in these judgments that non-signing of a legal notice sent under Section 138 of the Act, cannot be held to be an invalid notice as Section 138(b) of the Act does not contemplate that the notice should be signed by a party, if the author of the notice is identifiable. Again this exact point came for consideration in Madras High Court in the decision in C.N. Hari Krishnan v. Kinetic Finance Ltd., reported in 2004 (2) DCR 233. In reply, cou....
The learned counsel supported the reasons recorded by the trial Court and stated that the Appeal should be dismissed. The counsel relied on the Judgment in the matter of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, reported in 2008 All M.R. (Cri.) 314 (S.C.) and referring to Para 13 of the Judgment stated that even if presumptions under Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the Act were to be relied on the standard of proof as far as prosecution is concerned is to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt while the one on the accused is only mere preponderance of probability. The counsel submitted....
2. Sri. P.V. Gunjal, learned counsel for petitioner has raised following contentions: i). The Secretary of complainant society did not have locus-standi to present the complaint. That legal notice caused by petitioner is not in accordance with Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ii)
B 1 (notice) was issued by the landlord of the Advocate, the fact that it was not signed by the Advocate due to inadvertence it would not make the notice invalid in any way. Again this exact point came for consideration in Madras High Court in the decision in C.N. Hari Krishnan v. Kinetic Finance Ltd., reported in 2004 (2) DCR 233. The point thus raised has to be answered in favour of the appellant. Here also notice under Section 138 (b) was not signed by the Counsel and it was observed that where notice could be sent by fax or telegram, as I observed earlier, the....
It must be borne in mind that copy of the notice is not required to be signed by the Advocate. Secondly, respondent has proved on record that this notice was sent through Regd. AD and has produced Ex. PW1/C, which is the receipt issued by the postal authority.
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
