https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430065 A demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held valid because it effectively conveyed the payment demand after dishonour, identified the firm through its name and address, and caused no prejudice even though it was issued in the managing director's name without expressly stating it was on behalf of the firm. The notice need not follow any rigid form. The fine and sentence imposed for cheque dishonour were also upheld as they remained within the statutory ceiling, which permits fine up to twice the cheque amount, and the compensation-oriented approach supported the amounts imposed. The revisions therefore failed and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 31 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:59:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430065 A demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held valid because it effectively conveyed the payment demand after dishonour, identified the firm through its name and address, and caused no prejudice even though it was issued in the managing director's name without expressly stating it was on behalf of the firm. The notice need not follow any rigid form. The fine and sentence imposed for cheque dishonour were also upheld as they remained within the statutory ceiling, which permits fine up to twice the cheque amount, and the compensation-oriented approach supported the amounts imposed. The revisions therefore failed and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430065