Skip to main content

Demand notice not invalid if amount demanded same as cheque amount

In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 607-608 /2019, VIJAY GOPALA LOHAR vs PANDURANG RAMCHANDRA GHORPADE, the Respondent issued two notices against bounced cheques and as no payment was made even after the receipt of the notices, he filed two complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the noticed, though the amount mentioned was same as the cheques under consideration, there was a reference to the loan amount which had to be returned by the appellant according to the notices. The Trial Court held  that the notices were defective on the ground that the notices mentioned loan amount and not the cheque amount and were therefore contrary to Section 138 of the NI Act.

As the High Court on appeal differed with the trial court and convicted the appellant, the said appellant came before the Supreme Court. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that clause(b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act to submit that the demand by the notice should be only for the cheque amount and not for any other amount more than the cheque amount, while a perusal of the notice would show that the notice refers to the loan amount and not the cheque amount and for this the appellant relied upon judgments in K.R. Indira vs. Dr. G. Adinarayana and Rahul Builders vs. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals.

The Supreme dismissing the judgments held that in the judgments referred to above the notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act referred to loan amounts which were much higher than the cheque amounts. Whereas, in the instant case, the loan amount and the cheque amount is the same i.e., Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the above mentioned judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to this case.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more