LexKAVERI PLASTICS versus MAHDOOM BAWA BAHRUDEEN NOORUL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1210 : 2025 INSC 1133 Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul (Criminal Appeal No(s). 4142-4143 of 2025) 19 September 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and N.V. Anjaria,* J.] Issue for Consideration When the amount mentioned and demanded in the notice sent under Proviso (b) to s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, is different from the amount for which the cheque was issued, whether the notice would stand valid in eye of law; whether a defence that such was a typographical error could be a ground which could be countenanced in law. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Proviso (b) to s.138 – The High Court quashed the criminal complaint filed by the respondent herein u/ss.138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the ground that amount mentioned in the notice was not the same as per the cheque, which rendered the notice invalid – Correctness: Held: The fact situation is that the cheque in question was issued for Rs.1,00,00,000/- whereas in both the notices sent to the accused—the drawer of the cheque upon bouncing of the cheque, the complainant asked for the payment of Rs.2,00,00,000/- – A failure, namely when the cheque amount is not mentioned in the Proviso (b) notice or the amount different than the actual cheque amount is mentioned, in the notice, such notice would stand invalid in eye of law – The notice in terms of Proviso (b) being a provision in penal statute and a condition for the offence, it has to be precise while mentioning of the amount of the cheque which is dishonoured – Even if the cheque details are mentioned in the notice but corresponding amount of cheque is not correctly mentioned, it would not bring in law the validity for such notice – Here the principle of reading of notice as a whole is inapplicable and * Author [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1211 Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul irrelevant – Any elasticity cannot be adopted in the interpretation – It has to be given technical interpretation – The condition of notice under Proviso (b) is required to be complied with meticulously – Even typographical error can be no defence – The error even if typographical, would be fatal to the legality of notice, given the need for strict mandatory compliance – In order to make a valid notice under the Proviso (b) to s.138 of the NI Act, it is mandatory that ‘said amount’ to be mentioned therein is the very amount of cheque, and none other – Thus, the notice stood invalid and bad in law – The order of quashment of notice was eminently proper and legal. [Paras 3.3, 8.1, 8.2, 9, 10] Case Law Cited Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal & Anr. [2000] 1 SCR 601 : (2000) 2 SCC 380; Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals & Anr. [2007] 11 SCR 951 : (2008) 2 SCC 321; Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr. (2023) 1 SCC 578 – relied on. Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Saxons Farms & Ors. [1999] Supp. 3 SCR 534 : (1999) 8 SCC 221; K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana [2003] Supp. 4 SCR 535 : (2003) 8 SCC 300; M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 724 : AIR 1963 SC 1116; Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1314; K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora & Anr. [2009] 9 SCR 1144 : (2009) 10 SCC 48 – referred to. Gokuldas v. Atal Bihari & Anr., MCRC 5458/2013 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh); M/s. Yankay Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CITI Bank, 2001 DCR 609 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh); Chhabra Fabrics Private Limited v. Bhagwan Dass, Crl. Appeal No.1772-SB of 2002 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana); K. Gopal v. Mr. T. Mukunda, Criminal Appeal No.1011 of 2010 (High Court of Karnataka); Sunglo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State & Ors., MANU/DE/3805/2021 (Delhi High Court) – referred to. Dyke v. Elliott (1872) 4 PC 184; U.S. v. Wiltberger, 18 US 76 (1820) – referred to. List of Acts Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 1212 [2025] 9 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports List of Keywords Proviso (b) to s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Amount mentioned and demanded in the notice; Typographical error; Actual cheque amount; Penal statute; Dishonoured cheque; Legality of notice; Technical interpretation; Strict mandatory compliance. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s). 4142-4143 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2024 of the High Court of Delhi at N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.