TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes case due to invalid complaint filing, upholding Section 138 notice validity.</h1> <h3>MANINDER SINGH NARULA Versus PAWAN KUMAR RALLI</h3> The court quashed the criminal complaint case and summoning order, holding that the notice dated 27.04.2012 was a valid demand notice under Section 138 of ... - Issues Involved:1. Quashing of the criminal complaint case No.819/2012 and the summoning order dated 12.07.2012.2. Validity of the notice dated 27.04.2012 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act).3. Applicability of the judgment in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan & Anr. and its impact on the case.Summary:Issue 1: Quashing of the criminal complaint case No.819/2012 and the summoning order dated 12.07.2012.The Petitioner sought quashing of the criminal complaint case No.819/2012 and the summoning order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Karkardooma Court, Delhi, u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).Issue 2: Validity of the notice dated 27.04.2012 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act).The Respondent issued a handwritten notice dated 27.04.2012 demanding payment of the loan amount of Rs. 60 lacs along with interest. The Petitioner argued that the complaint was barred u/s 142(b) of the N.I. Act as it was not filed within one month after the expiry of 15 days of receipt of the notice dated 27.04.2012. The court examined whether the notice dated 27.04.2012 was a valid demand notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was concluded that the notice dated 27.04.2012 was indeed a valid demand notice, as it sufficiently informed the Petitioner about the dishonour of the cheques and demanded payment.Issue 3: Applicability of the judgment in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan & Anr. and its impact on the case.The Petitioner argued that the subsequent notice dated 24.05.2012 did not give a fresh period of limitation to file a complaint on 05.07.2012. The Respondent relied on the judgment in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan & Anr., which allows for successive notices and fresh causes of action. However, the court noted that the cheques were not presented again nor dishonoured before the issuance of the subsequent notice dated 24.05.2012. Therefore, the complaint filed on 05.07.2012 was barred under Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act.Conclusion:The court held that the notice dated 27.04.2012 was a valid demand notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Since the complaint was not filed within the stipulated period after the expiry of 15 days from the receipt of this notice, it was barred under Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act. Consequently, the continuance of proceedings in the complaint case against the Petitioner would be an abuse of process of court. The complaint dated 05.07.2012 and the summoning order dated 12.07.2012 were quashed. The Petition was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
