| Home |
Section 138, 141 - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued after the cheque was dishonoured fourth time - Complaint is maintainable - Held, if cheque is presented again and again, the cause of prosecute subsists but if notice has been issued thereafter, re-presentment of the cheque does not give a fresh cause. (Sunil Vs Bhagwat Dayal Gupta) 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (P&H)
Section 138, Companies Act, 1956, Section 434 - Notice - Issued u/s 434 Companies Act within 15 days of the information from the Bank regarding return of cheque drawn by a company as unpaid - Amounts to a notice u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Uniplas India Ltd. & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.) 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (S.C.) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 610 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0664
Section 138, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 380, 465, 467, 468 and 471 - Dishonour of cheque - 'T' filed complaint against 'Dr.T' - 'Dr.T' alleging theft of cheque and also filing a complaint - 'Dr.T.' convicted in complaint filed by 'T' while 'T' discharged in complaint filed by 'Dr.T' - In appeal 'Dr.T' acquitted - Revision and appeal disposed by a common order by High Court - High Court upheld the acquittal of 'Dr.T' and set aside the order of acquittal of 'T' - As notice not issued before filing complaint u/s 138 NI Act so 'Dr.T' acquitted and this is a finding of fact and is based on proper appreciation of evidence and needs no interference - However the High Court judgment setting aside the order of discharge passed in favour of 'T' cannot be sustained as on perusal of record Supreme Court finds that the trial Court was fully justified in concluding that the evidence adduced on behalf of 'Dr.T' was insufficient to make out a prima facie against 'T' - Order of High Court setting aside discharge of 'T' set aside. (Tomy Jacob Katikkaran Vs Dr.Thomas Manjaly) 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S.C.) - 1997(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 581 (S.C.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0826 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0153 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0661
Section 138 - 'Notice' - Sent by registered post - Drawer intimated by post, "received one empty envelope without any content in it, therefore request you to kindly send the content, if any" - Complainant sending fresh notice after representation of cheque - Complaint filed thereafter is maintainable as the case of the accused is that he had not received the earlier notice. (M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs M/s Galaxy Traders) 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 159 (S.C.) = 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 174 (S.C.)
Section 138 - Cheque - Dishonoured - Notice - Sent by Fax - It amounts to compliance with the legal requirement - Time limit for filing complaint would start running on the date when the notice sent by Fax reaches the drawer of the cheque. (M/s SIL Import, USA Vs M/s Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore) 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 295 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 493 (S.C.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0432 : 1999 (2) CTC 0354
Section 138 - Notice - Cheque dishonoured on 13.1.1994 - Intimation given to payee on 17.1.1994 - Fifteen days period for sending notice of demand is to be counted from the receipt of information from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. (M/s Munoth Investments Ltd. Vs M/s Puttukola Properties Ltd.) 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 325 (S.C.) = 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 480 (S.C.)
Section 138 - Notice - Demand made not of the cheque amount but only the loan amount - Further demands were also made - Demand of cheque amount was conspicuously absent - Notice is invalid not for the reason that further demands were also made but for the reason that it did not specifically contain any demand for the payment of the cheque amount. (K.R.Indira Vs Dr.G.Adinarayana) 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 232 (S.C.)
Section 138 - Notice - Demand of interest, cost. etc. in addition to cheque amount - Notice will not be invalid if break up of the claim i.e. the cheque amount, interest, damages etc. are separately specified - Other such claims for interest, cost etc. would be superfluous and these additional claims would be severable and will not invalidate the notice - If, however, in the notice an omnibus demand is made without specifying what was due under the dishonoured cheque then notice is bad. (Suman Sethi Vs Ajay K.Churiwal & Anr.) 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 386 (S.C.) : 2000(1) Apex Court Jounral 268 (S.C.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0275 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0546 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0780
Section 138 - Notice - Indication of any other sum other than amount of cheque - Notice is not invalidated. (K.R.Indira Vs Dr.G.Adinarayana) 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 232 (S.C.)
Section 138 - Notice - Issued but not within 15 days - Cheque can be presented again within the permitted period - If cheque bounced again prosecution can be launched on the basis of second notice within 15 days. (M/s Uniplas India Ltd. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)) 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 610 (S.C.) : 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0664
Section 138 - Notice - Loan from two persons - Consolidated notice - Is valid if it provides sufficient information envisaged by the statutory provision and there is specific demand for the payment of the sum covered by the cheque dishonoured. (K.R.Indira Vs Dr.G.Adinarayana) 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 232 (S.C.)
Section 138 - Notice - Non mention in complaint that notice has been served - Complaint not maintainable. (M/s Shakti Travel & Tours Vs State of Bihar) 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 583 (S.C.) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 370(1) (S.C.) : 2003 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0380 : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0555
Section 138 - Notice - 'Giving of notice' and 'Receipt of notice' - Giving of notice is not the same as receipt of notice - When notice is returned unclaimed by sender it would amount to receipt of notice - In such a case reckoning of 15 days would start running from date of return of notice. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.) 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688
Section 138 - Notice - Acquittal on finding that before filing complaint notice was not served within the prescribed period - Finding is one of fact and based on proper appreciation of evidence - No interference is called for. (Tomy Jacob Katikkaran Vs Dr.Thomas Manjaly & Anr.) 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S.C.) - 1997(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 581 (S.C.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0826 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0153 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0661
Section 138 - Notice - Demand of interest, cost. etc. in addition to cheque amount - Notice will not be invalid if break up of the claim i.e. the cheque amount, interest, damages etc. are separately specified - Other such claims for interest, cost etc. would be superfluous and these additional claims would be severable and will not invalidate the notice - If, however, in the notice an omnibus demand is made without specifying what was due under the dishonoured cheque then notice is bad. (Suman Sethi Vs Ajay K.Churiwal & Anr.) 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 386 (S.C.) : 2000(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 268 (S.C.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0275 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0546 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0780
Section 138 - Notice - Issued to the Managing Director of the Company who signed the cheques - Held, there was no infirmity in the notice - High Court not justified in quashing the complaint on ground that notice was sent to the Managing Director at his office address since that could not mean that the notice was sent to the company itself. (Bilakchand Gyanchand Co. Vs A.Chinnaswami) 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 562 (S.C.)
Section 138 - Notice - Last line of notice reads thus "Kindly arrange to make payment to avoid unpleasant action of my client" - High Court holding that there was no proper notice, on ground that there was no demand for money and hence quashed proceedings - Not correct - There was demand in notice - Drawer could have paid through bank or directly - Cheque could be represented demanding drawer to arrange for payment - Notice valid. (Central Bank of India & Anr. Vs M/s Saxons Farms ) 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 471 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 610 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0433 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0147 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0648 : 1999 (2) MPLJ 0024 : 1999 (2) CTC 0347
Section 138 - Notice - Sent by Registered post at correct address - Notice received back with postal endorsement "house locked" - Complaint cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the ground that there is no proper service of notice - Notice whether has been served has to be decided during trial - Burden is on complainant to show that accused managed to get an incorrect postal endorsement made and what is the effect of it has to be considered during trial. (V.Raja Kumari Vs P.Subbarama Naidu) 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (S.C.) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 354 (S.C.)
Sections 138, 141 - Company - Notice - Notice issued in name of Director who signed cheque - Notice proper - Notice cannot be construed in a narrow technical way without examining substance of matter - Prosecution proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that notice was not served on Company. (Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs Amit J.Bhalla) 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 122 (S.C.)
Sections 138,142 - Notice dt.10.6.1992 - On the acknowledgment date mentioned as 13.6 - If the notice is despatched on 13.6.1992 then it is beyond 15 days of intimation of dishonour - Held, at the stage of deciding whether process is to be issued or not Magistrate is not required to assess the material on record minutely - High Court cannot quash the proceedings on this ground. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti) 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (Kant.) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689
Sections 138, 141 - CompaSection 138(b) - Notice - To constitute a notice there must be a demand for payment of the amount covered by the bounced cheque. (Koshy Titus Vs Crystal Biscuits India Pvt.Ltd.) 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 46 (Kerala)
|