LexSUMAN SETHI versus AJAY K. CHURIWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'>
SUMAN SETHI
A
~
v.
AJAY K. CHURIWAL
FEBRUARY 2, 2000
[G.T. NANAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
B
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss.138 (b) and (c), 139--Cheque is-
sued by appellant inf av our of respondent when presented for payment returned
with remarks ''insufficient fu.nds''-Magistrate holding that notice for demand
bad in law since amount demanded was higher than cheque amount-High c
Court allowing revision filed by respondent complainant-Held, on facts,
notice clearly specified the "said amount" and the additional amounts claimed
were clearly severable; notice was valid-/nterpretation of Statutes.
The appellant issued a cheque in favour of respondent No.I. The
cheque when presented for payment was returned with the remarks "insuf-
D
ficient fund". Thereafter within 15 days of the return of the cheque,
respondent No. 1 gave a notice of demand as required under proviso (b)
to Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('Act') Claiming
~ ,..,,.
the cheque amount and certain additional amounts in the form or inciden-
tal charges and notice charge. The appellant failed to meet the demand, E
and a complaint was filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Metropolitan
·~
Magistrate.
'
The Magistrate was of the view that the demand made in the notice
being higher than the amount of the cheque, the notice was bad in law. The
revision petition filed by Respondent No. 1 was allowed by the High Court F
and the order of the Magistrate was set aside.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
.·1
HELD : 1.1. In the notice in question the "said amount" i.e. the
G
cheque amount had been clearly stated. Respondent No. 1 had claimed in
i
addition to the cheque amounts, incidental charges and notice charge.
.
\
These two amounts were severable. If respondent No. 1 had paid the
:;-
cheque amount he would have been absolved from the criminal liability
under S.138. Regarding other claims, a civil suit would be necessary.
[606-E·G] H
601
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2000) 1 S.C.R.
A
1.2. The notice has to be read as a whole. In the notice, demand has
to be made for the "said amonnt" i.e. cheque amount. If no such demand
was made the notice no doubt would fall short of its legal requirement.
Where in addition to ''said amount' there were also specific claims towards
interest, costs etc. such claims would be severable and would not invalidate
B the notice. If, however, in the notice an omnibus demand was made without
specifying what was due under the dishonoured cheque, the notice might
well fail to meet the legal requirement and may be regarded as bad.
[605-D-E]
M. Narayanan Nambair v. State of Kerala, [1963) 2 Supp. SCR 724;
C Duke v. Elliot, (1872) LR 4 AC 1.'~4 and Central Bank of India v. !vf.!s. Saxons
Farms, JT (1999) 8 SC 58, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
113 of 2000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.97 of the Calcutta High
D Court in Crl. R. No. 1611 of 1997.
S.S. Ray, Harish N. Salve, R.F. Nariman, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sushi!
Kumar Jain, A.P. Dharnija, Ms Madhurirna Tatia, Ms. Anjali Dhoshi,
Sanjiv Sen, Rajan Narain, (Dilip Sinha, J.R. Das,) for M/s. Sinha & Das,
E K.K. Mahalik, Ranjan Mukhe:rjee, Pradeep Aggarwal, Kailash Vasdev,
Satvik Varma, D. Mahanty, lJmesh Kumar Bohre, A. Mishra, Prakash
Srivastava, L.P. Singh and N.B. Khatiwada for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
PHCKA.1'1, J. Leave granted.
G
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
3.10.1997 passed by the Calcutta Hlgh Court in Criminal Revision No.
161L'97. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the order of
the Metropolitan Magistrate - 16th, Calcutta passed in case No. C/1661)96.
Brid1y stated the facts are as follows :
The appellant issued ;;, cheqm; for Rs. 20,00.000 (Rupees Twenty
Lacs) in favour of respondent No. 1 The cheque was presented to the
banker which was returned on 2nd August, 1996 with the remarks "Insuf-
H ficient Fund". Thereafter within 15 days of return of the cheque, respon-
SUMANSElHL v. AJAYK. CHURIWAL[PHUKUN,J.J
603
dent No. 1 gave a notice of demand as required under proviso (b) to A
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, (for
short the Act). As the appellant failed to meet the demand, a complaint
was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate. On perusal of the above
notice, the Magistrat.: was of the view that the (demand made in Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.