Kanahiya Gupta v. Lal Bahadur Singh
1 !"## $%$ &%&8%&%7
2 9
3 4( 5
66666
7%#
! "#$%&'(
Lal Bahadur r Singh Vers sus Kanahiya Gupta
-# 8%
) *
(##+
,/
&&-%&' + . 6%,( 0)
)
-#8
) *
( ##/ / 0 )
%
!
( 5
( . . 6%(
)
-# # ) *
+ (
,10
$ ( . . 6-( )
5
-#+),
(
:
5
(0 sine qua non
-#
- ; ( ) %%%%&#+ . 6-, ) $
( 9- :( ) 9%%(&&&$6 0 *
) ( 0
) 5 ( 0
5 *
) ( )
< =>)
!
"!#$ %
&'
"!#$% ()(0 ) .
5
-#
8 ! ( 5
&&-%&'+ . 6%,
0
5 ( 5
( )
)
7 =5 )
5 (
.
" !=>) !
*!
+,- #
+.
!
# / / 0
5
-#
0 6 ?# It is well settled principle of law that the notice has to be read as a whole. In the notice, demand has to be made for the "said amount" i.e. cheque amount. If no such demand is made the notice no doubt would fall short of its legal requirement. Where in addition to "said amount" there is also a claim by way of interest, cost etc. whether the notice is bad would depend on the language of the notice. If in a notice while giving the break up of the claim the cheque amount, interest, damages etc. are separately specified, other such claims for interest, cost etc. would be superfluous and these additional claims would he severable$ and will not invalidate the notice. If, however, in the notice an omnibus demand is made without specifying what was due under the dishonored cheque, notice might well fail to meet the legal requirement and may be regarded as bad." @
) " $ 6 ?"AAa demand in addition to the cheque amount in a demand notice by itself would not make it invalid. In other words, as held therein, in the demand notice, demand has to be made for the 'cheque amount' and therefore, notice sans such demand would fall short of legal requirement. At the same time, we will reiterate the position that if in a notice while giving the break up of the claim the cheque amount interest, damages, etc. are separately specified and these additional claims would be severable, such demand would not invalidate the notice."
& # ; )5 ( 5
5
( (5) ' 0 )
5
+ . 6-,6 "4. That the above said two Cheques were deposited with his bank (Union Bank of India, Sector$28, Faridabad) by my client for payment on 05.12.2018, however, it is regretted that the said Cheques were returned unpaid by your banker (HDFC Bank Jasna Road, Bhopani More, Village Bhopani, Faridabad) on 06.12.2018 оп account of insufficiency of funds in your bank account as per the return memo issued by my client's bank (Union Bank of India, Sector$28, Faridabad). The return memos were delivered to my client on 15$12$2018.
5. That by this notice my client offers you another opportunity to pay the cheque amount within 15 (fifteen) days of receipt of the notice to avoid complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Under the above facts and circumstances, I hereby call upon you to make the payment of Rs.3,00,000/$ (Rupees Three Lacs Only) within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this Notice, failing which, my client shall be constrained to initiate proceedings u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against you at your risk, costs and expenses. Further, you are also called upon to pay Rs.22.000/$ (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only) as cost of this Notice. Sd/$Som Dutta Sharma Advocate"
& !
( + . 6-, .
9- : 9%%(&&&$6 5)
)
(
) ) )
(
)
" $
!
-#+),
0
0) =>) !
*!
+ , %
( 5 (5 !
- =05(
)5)5
) ).
'()*%$ $%$ <5 B :$ C$ B ) C$