In a recent ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court (HC), bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, dismissed the appeal for not making the demand of the amount covered by the bounced cheque.
The court observed that the notice which was issued after the bouncing of the cheque, there was no demand of the amount of the bounced cheque.
The fact is that the appellant/complainant, filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the ground that she had filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, against an award which was made in favour of the accused.
During said proceedings, the parties arrived at a compromise and in terms of the compromise, a cheque for an amount of Rs.3,00,000 was issued by the accused to the complainant, i.e., drawn upon Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank.
The complaint has been rejected by the Trial Court on two counts. The first count, on which the complaint has been rejected by the learned Trial Court is that the notice issued after the cheque was returned back as dishonoured, was no notice as contemplated under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, as no demand of money was made therein.
The second count, on which the complaint has been dismissed by learned Court below is that the cheque in issue was presented before the drawee bank after the due date, i.e. six months as from the date the cheque was issued.
The bench observed the supreme court decision in K.R. Indira Versus Dr. G. Adinarayana, (2003), that though no formal notice is prescribed in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, the statutory provisions indicate in unmistakable terms as to what should be clearly indicated in the notice and what manner of demand it should make. The bench found no error in the findings of the trial court that the notice was no notice as per the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
