https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778775 SC held that where a cheque for a specified sum was dishonoured but the Proviso (b) notice demanded a different amount, the notice was invalid. A claim that the discrepancy was a typographical error could not be accepted for purposes of strict penal provisions under Section 138 NI Act. Because the notice failed to specifically demand the cheque amount, it created ambiguity as to the "said amount," rendering the notice bad in law. The High Court's order quashing the notice was upheld and the appeals were dismissed. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2025 08:29:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778775 SC held that where a cheque for a specified sum was dishonoured but the Proviso (b) notice demanded a different amount, the notice was invalid. A claim that the discrepancy was a typographical error could not be accepted for purposes of strict penal provisions under Section 138 NI Act. Because the notice failed to specifically demand the cheque amount, it created ambiguity as to the "said amount," rendering the notice bad in law. The High Court's order quashing the notice was upheld and the appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778775