TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner is the accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on the allegation that the respondent is engaged in the business of freight forwarding logistics, leasing out containers, providing and rendering various services to traders for their imports and exports from and to various parts in India. In the course of such business, the petitioner approached the respondent during the month of August 2018 representing that they are carrying on business in the name and style of M/s.Trans Pacific Logistics Private Limited and requested to lease out 23 units of 40' HC. Accordingly, they entered into agreement dated 27.08.2018 and the respondent leased out 23 units of 40' HC in favour of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of his contention, he also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kaveri Plastics Vs. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 927. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is absolutely no prejudice caused to the petitioner by demanding the entire due in excess of the cheque amount. In the said notice, it was categorically mentioned that the cheque was issued for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- Therefore, the complaint is very much maintainable and on this technical ground, the entire complaint cannot be quashed. 5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court. 6. Admittedly, the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent from the demand made by the respondent as contemplated under Section 138 of NI Act. The object of the notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of NI Act is to give a chance to the drawer of the cheque to rectify his omission and also to protect an honest drawer. Therefore, the legal notice cannot be different from the cheque amount. Further, the purport of group of words 'makes a demand for the payment of said amount of money' occurring in Proviso (b) to Section 138 of NI Act, and in particular the connotation ' the said amount of money' therein hold key. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the case of Kaveri Plastics Vs. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 927 as follows: "7. When the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 138 of the NI Act would fall flat as bad in law. The notice to be issued under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act, must mention the same amount for which the cheque was issued. It is mandatory that the demand in the statutory notice has to be the very amount of the cheque. After mentioning the exact cheque amount, the sender of the service may claim in the notice amounts such as legal charges, notice charges, interest and such other additional amounts, provided the cheque amount is specified to be demanded for payment. 8.1 A failure in above regard, namely when the cheque amount is not mentioned in the Proviso (b) notice or the amount different than the actual cheque amount is mentioned, in the notice, such notice would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o make a valid notice under the Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act, it is mandatory that 'said amount' to be mentioned therein is the very amount of cheque, and none other. 10. Reverting to recollect the facts of this case, the cheque which was drawn by the respondent was for Rs. 1,00,000/- whereas in the notice issued under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act against the respondent, appellant mentions the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The rigours of law on this score being strict, the defence would not hold good that the different amount mentioned in the notice was out of inadvertence. Even if the cheque number was mentioned in the notice, since the amount was different, it created an ambiguity and differentiation about the....