TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1898
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to supply t-shirts on credit basis of 45 days from the date of sale. The said material was supplied and six invoices were generated qua it, totaling to a sum of Rs. 93,15,401/-. On 14.06.2021, the petitioners paid Rs. 12,36,000/- and thus Rs. 80,79,286/- remained due. In order to discharge the said legal liability, the petitioners issued six cheques. The present complaint pertains to cheque bearing No. 000476 dated 08.06.2021 of Rs. 6,18,912/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jmd Regent Square, Mehrauli, Gurgaon, issued in favour of respondent No. 3. However, on presentation for encashment, the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks- 'Funds Insufficient' vide return memo dated 11.06.2021. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 02.07.2021 was served upon the petitioners. Since the petitioners failed to make the requisite payment within the stipulated time, complaint(supra) was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the legal notice dated 02.07.2021 does not mention the part payment of Rs. 12,36,000/- made by the petitioners via RTGS on 14.06.2021, which is also reflected in the ledger account maintained by respondent No. 3. He further contends that it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.2025. Proceedings before the trial Court shall be kept at abeyance till the next date of hearing." 4. Further still, to support his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahenderabhai Patel and others', 2023(1) RCR (Criminal) 408 and 'Upasana Mishra vs. Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd.', 2024(1) ACR 100 as well as the Delhi High Court in 'Alliance Infrastructure Project Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Vinay Mittal', 2010 (2), RCR, (Criminal) 525 and 'Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul vs. Kaveri Plastics', Citation No.2024:DHC:1463. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that in one of the connected matters i.e. the petition bearing No. CRM-M-36903-2025 filed by the petitioners has already been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025, which is a persuasive precedent in favour of respondent No. 3. Lastly, disputed questions of facts are required to be assessed by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced. As such, interference by this Court is not warranted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut 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/- which was tendered to the complainant by cheque dated 30.04.2000. What was, therefore, demanded was the entire sum and not a part of it. 11. Mr. Jain relied upon a decision of this Court in Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal and Another, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 780 : [(2000)2 SCC 380] wherein it was stated: "8. It is a well-settled principle of law that the notice has to be read as a whole. In the notice, demand has to be made for the "said amount" i.e. the cheque amount. If no such demand is made the notice no doubt would fall short of its legal requirement. Where in addition to the "said amount" there is also a claim by way of interest, cost etc. whether the notice is bad would depend ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut it did not specifically contain any demand for the payment of the cheque amount, the non-compliance with such a demand only being the incriminating circumstance which exposes the drawer for being proceeded against under Section 138 of the Act...." 13. As in the instant case, no demand was made for payment of the cheque amount, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted." Adverting to the factual matrix of the case at hand, it appears that a specific demand of Rs. 6,18,912/- has been raised in the legal notice, corresponding to the amount mentioned in the dishonoured cheque (supra). As such, there is nothing on the record to substantiate the claim that the said legal notice was omnibus in nature and failed to provide the complete and specific information necessary to initiate proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. 7. As far as the alleged part payment of Rs. 12,36,000/- and relevance thereof is concerned, the same will be ascertained at the time of trial, subject to the evidence adduced by the parties. This Court cannot assume the role of the trial Court and suffocate the proceedings, taking advantage of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by appreciating the ....