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>Legal Notice for Demand Issued Beyond 30 Days Deemed Unmaintainable</h1> <h3>DHEERAJ JAIN Versus STATE & ANR.</h3> DHEERAJ JAIN Versus STATE & ANR. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Timeliness of Legal Notice2. Vicarious Liability3. Territorial JurisdictionSummary:Issue 1: Timeliness of Legal NoticeBy the present petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26th October, 2010 summoning the Petitioner for offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and the consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No. 612/1A/11. The primary issue argued was that the legal notice for demand was not issued by the Complainant within 30 days of the knowledge of dishonor of the cheque. The Petitioner contended that as per the complaint and affidavit, the Complainant was aware of the cheque dishonor on 10th July, 2010, but the legal notice was sent on 10th August, 2010, which exceeds the 30-day period mandated by Section 138(b) of the NI Act. The Court noted that the admitted position was that Respondent No.2 received the intimation of dishonor on 10th July, 2010, and issued the legal notice on 10th August, 2010. Therefore, the demand was made beyond the 30-day period, rendering the complaint not maintainable. The Court relied on precedents such as Shivakumar vs. Natarajan and Munoth Investments Ltd. v. Puttukola Properties Ltd., emphasizing that the notice must be issued within 30 days of receipt of information about the dishonor.Issue 2: Vicarious LiabilityThe Petitioner argued that the complaint was filed against him individually, although the cheque was issued on behalf of the company. In the absence of the company being impleaded, the Petitioner could not be vicariously held liable. However, this issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment as the primary focus was on the timeliness of the legal notice.Issue 3: Territorial JurisdictionThe Petitioner also contended that the Court at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. This issue was not discussed in detail in the judgment, as the petition was primarily confined to the first ground regarding the timeliness of the legal notice.Conclusion:In view of the legal position that the notice of demand has to be issued within a 30-day period, the Court held that the complaint of Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner is not maintainable. Thus, the impugned order of summoning and the proceedings pursuant thereto were quashed. The petition and application were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
