TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resent appellant was dismissed by the learned Court below. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant/complainant (hereinafter to be referred as the 'complainant'), filed a complaint filed against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that she had filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur against an award which was made in favour of the accused. During said proceedings, the parties arrived at a compromise and in terms of the compromise, a cheque for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/was issued by the accused to the complainant, i.e. cheque No.0012360, drawn upon H.P. State Cooperative Bank, Branch Beri, at Bilaspur, H.P. The cheque was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not amount to statutory compliance of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has further submitted that the notice that was issued was not a general notice but it was in terms of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued after the cheque in issue stood dishonoured, but this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by learned Trial Court, which adopted a hyper technical view in the matter. Learned counsel further submitted that as the cheque was issued on 14.09.2004 and the same was presented by the appellant with her bank within six months as from the date its issuance, therefore, the appellant had done whatever she was supposed to do and if her bank presented the cheque to the payee bank after the period of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... drawn upon H.P. State Cooperative Bank, branch Beri, District Bilaspur, H.P. This cheque though was presented by the appellant with her bank on 07.03.2005, yet the same was received by the payee bank, i.e. H.P. State Cooperative Bank, branch Beri, District Bilaspur, H.P. on 15.03.2005, i.e. after six months from the date of issuance of the cheque which lapsed on 13.03.2004. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Ishwar Alloy Steels Ltd. Versus Jayaswals Neco LTD., (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 609, has been pleased to hold that the law mandates a cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable necessarily within six months as from the date of its issuance (this judgment relates to the period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable. Such presentation is necessarily to be made within six months at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, whether presented personally or through another bank, namely, the collecting bank of the payee." 10. Therefore, from the reading of the above para of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court observes that there is no infirmity in the findings returned by learned Trial Court that the cheque in issue in fact was presented before the payee bank after the cheque had expired as it is an admitted fact that the cheque was presented with the payee bank, may be by the bank of present appellant, after a period of six months as from the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kes a demand for the payment of money by giving a notice in writing". The relevant paras of the notice which was issued by the appellant to the respondent after the dishnonouring of the cheque have already been quoted by me hereinabove. Perusal thereof demonstrates that though in the said notice there was a mention of the dishonouring of the cheque, but in terms of the language of the proviso referred to hereinabove, no demand for the payment of the said amount of money was raised in the said notice by the appellant. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R. Indira Versus Dr. G. Adinarayana, (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 300, has been pleased to hold that though no formal notice is prescribed in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, the statut....