<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Reduced cheque demand after part payments does not invalidate statutory notice where liability and balance are clearly explained</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101663</link>
    <description>A statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must demand the cheque amount, but it must also be read as a whole. Where part payments reduce the outstanding liability, a notice that identifies the original liability, dishonoured cheques, payments received, and computation of the balance is not invalid merely because it demands less than the aggregate cheque amounts. Whether the cheques continued to represent a legally enforceable debt, whether Section 56 applied, and the effect of absent endorsement were matters requiring evidence. Those issues could not be conclusively decided while reviewing a summoning order, so the complaint was allowed to proceed on its merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 08:26:27 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 08:26:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Reduced cheque demand after part payments does not invalidate statutory notice where liability and balance are clearly explained</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101663</link>
      <description>A statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must demand the cheque amount, but it must also be read as a whole. Where part payments reduce the outstanding liability, a notice that identifies the original liability, dishonoured cheques, payments received, and computation of the balance is not invalid merely because it demands less than the aggregate cheque amounts. Whether the cheques continued to represent a legally enforceable debt, whether Section 56 applied, and the effect of absent endorsement were matters requiring evidence. Those issues could not be conclusively decided while reviewing a summoning order, so the complaint was allowed to proceed on its merits.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 08:26:27 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>