TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....II Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch on a complaint made by the appellant herein is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 22-11-2004 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 2924 of 2004. 2. Appellant is a partnership firm. Respondent No. 1 entered into a contract with it for construction of a building and factory premises. Appellant executed the said contract. It submitted bills for execution of contractual work for a sum of Rs. 26,46,647. Respondent No. 1 had made payments of Rs. 17,74,238 and a balance of Rs. 8,72,409 was said to be outstanding. A cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Indore was issued by Respondent No. 1 in favour of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt by reason of the said notice having demanded a sum of Rs. 8,72,409 as against the cheque which was for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 only, the notice was vague and did not serve the statutory requirements of Provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Act. 5. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment so far as it failed to consider : (i)Section 138 of the Act does not postulate a 15 days' notice; (ii)Non-payment of the amount of cheque being Rs. 1,00,000 being a part of the demand sum of Rs. 8,72,409, no exception thereto could be taken. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice." 8. Section 138 does not speak of a 15 days' notice. It contemplates service of notice and payment of the amount of cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. When the statute prescribes for service of notice specifying a particular period, it should be expressly stated. In absence of any such stipulation, it is difficult to hold that 15 days' notice was thereby contemplated. The High Court, therefore, was not correct in arriving at the aforementioned finding. 9. We have noticed hereinbefore the notice dated 31-10-2000 issued by the appellant t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay that the demand may not only represent the unpaid amount under cheque but also other incidental expenses like costs and interests, but the same would not mean that the notice would be vague and capable of two interpretations. An omnibus notice without specifying as to what was the amount due under the dishonoured cheque would not subserve the requirement of law. Respondent No. 1 was not called upon to pay the amount which was payable under the cheque issued by it. The amount which it was called upon to pay was the outstanding amounts of bills, i.e., Rs. 8,72,409. The noticee was to respond to the said demand. Pursuant thereto, it was to offer the entire sum of Rs. 8,72,409. No demand was made upon it to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,00,000 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 138 if he makes the payment of the amount covered by the cheque of which he was aware within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice or before the complaint is filed." (p. 384) [Emphasis supplied] As therein, some other sums were indicated in addition to the amount of cheque, it was, therefore, not held to be a case where the dispute might be existing in respect of the entire outstanding amount. 12. On this aspect of the matter, we may consider K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana [2003] 8 SCC 300^1 wherein this Court upon noticing Suman Sethi's case (supra) stated the law, thus : ". . .However, according to the respondent, the notice in question is not separable in that way and that there was no specific demand ....