https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755076 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, notice addressed to the company's director/signatory in that capacity satisfied the statutory requirement of notice to the drawer because the company was also impleaded as an accused and the cheques were issued on its behalf. The Court held that proviso (b) is meant to give the drawer an opportunity to pay and avoid penal consequences, and that purpose was met on the facts. Earlier decisions cited by the petitioners were distinguished as cases where the company itself had not been arraigned. The demand notice was therefore sufficient, the complaints remained maintainable, and quashing was refused. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jul 2024 17:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755076 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, notice addressed to the company's director/signatory in that capacity satisfied the statutory requirement of notice to the drawer because the company was also impleaded as an accused and the cheques were issued on its behalf. The Court held that proviso (b) is meant to give the drawer an opportunity to pay and avoid penal consequences, and that purpose was met on the facts. Earlier decisions cited by the petitioners were distinguished as cases where the company itself had not been arraigned. The demand notice was therefore sufficient, the complaints remained maintainable, and quashing was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755076