Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 499 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - validity of notice issued - 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 - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the cheque in issue is dated 14.09.2004. The same was drawn upon H.P. State Cooperative Bank, branch Beri, District Bilaspur, H.P. This cheque though was presented by the appellant with her bank on 07.03.2005, yet the same was received by the payee bank, i.e. H.P. State Cooperative Bank, branch Beri, District Bilaspur, H.P. on 15.03.2005, i.e. after six months from the date of issuance of the cheque which lapsed on 13.03.2004. Hon’ble Supreme Court in SHRI ISHAR ALLOY STEELS LTD. VERSUS JAYASWALS NECO LIMITED [2001 (2) TMI 984 - SUPREME COURT], has been pleased to hold that the law mandates a cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable necessarily within six months as from the date of its issuance (this judgment relates to the period when the validity of cheque used to be for a period of six months) - in the said judgement, this Court observes that there is no infirmity in the findings returned by learned Trial Court that the cheque in issue in fact was presented before the payee bank after the cheque had expired as it is an admitted fact that the cheque was presented with the payee bank, may be by the bank of present appellant, after a period of six months as from the date of issuance of the cheque. Hon’ble Supreme Court in KR. INDIRA VERSUS DR. G. ADINARAYANA [2003 (10) TMI 385 - SUPREME COURT], has been pleased to hold 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court was further held that what is necessary is making of a demand for the amount covered by the bounced cheque. Coming back to the facts of the present case, as in the notice which was issued after the bouncing of the cheque, there was no demand of the amount of the bounced cheque, in this background, the findings returned by learned Trial Court that the notice was no notice in the eyes of law, as is envisaged under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, were also correct findings. This Court does not finds any merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed.
|