Cheque Bounce Cases Fail if Demand Notice Mentions Wrong Amount: Supreme Court [Read Order]
The Supreme Court ruled that a cheque bounce notice is invalid if it demands an amount different from the actual cheque amount, even if claimed as a typographical error.
![Cheque Bounce Cases Fail if Demand Notice Mentions Wrong Amount: Supreme Court [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/09/24/2090272-cheque-bounce-cases-taxscan.webp "Cheque Bounce Cases Fail if Demand Notice Mentions Wrong Amount: Supreme Court [Read Order]")
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a cheque bounce demand notice is invalid if it mentions an amount different from the actual cheque amount. The case arose from a special leave petition filed by Kaveri Plastics challenging the Delhi High Court’s order dated 26 February 2024, which had quashed a criminal complaint under Sections 138, 141, and 142 of...
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a cheque bounce demand notice is invalid if it mentions an amount different from the actual cheque amount.
The case arose from a special leave petition filed by Kaveri Plastics challenging the Delhi High Court’s order dated 26 February 2024, which had quashed a criminal complaint under Sections 138, 141, and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The High Court observed that the notice of demand was invalid because it mentioned a sum that was not the same as the cheque amount.
The dispute began when Nafto Gaz India Pvt. Ltd. issued a cheque of Rs. 1 crore in favour of Kaveri Plastics, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Kaveri Plastics then issued two demand notices in which it mistakenly demanded Rs. 2 crores. The accused argued that the notices did not comply with Section 138(b) of the NI Act, making the complaint unsustainable.
Master the Latest Amendments in Income Tax Act Click here
The petitioner’s counsel argued before the Supreme Court that the error was a typographical mistake caused by copy-pasting from another notice involving a Rs. 2 crore cheque. The counsel explained that all cheque details were correctly stated, and only the demand figure was wrong.
They further argued that courts should consider the notice as a whole rather than quash a complaint on a technical ground.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel argued that the demand notices clearly mentioned the wrong amount on more than one occasion, which could not be excused as a mere mistake. They pointed out that the law required strict compliance and that only the cheque amount could be demanded in the notice.
The Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that Section 138(b) requires the notice to demand “the said amount of money,” meaning the cheque amount alone. It explained that demanding either a lesser or higher amount fails to meet the legal requirement.
The court also observed that since the error was repeated in two separate notices, the explanation of the typographical error could not be accepted.
The court pointed out that penal provisions must be strictly interpreted and even typographical errors are fatal when the notice does not match the cheque amount. The court upheld the Delhi High Court’s order and dismissed the appeals.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
