138 Valid Legal Notice Rahul Builders SC 2007
138 Valid Legal Notice Rahul Builders SC 2007
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 525 of 2005
PETITIONER:
M/s. Rahul Builders
RESPONDENT:
M/s. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical & Anr
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
S.B. SINHA, J :
3. As despite receipt of the said notice, Respondent No. 1 did not make
any payment, a complaint petition was filed on 11.12.2000. An application
was filed by Respondent No. 1 for rejection of the said complaint inter alia
on the ground that the notice issued by the appellant was not a valid one.
The said application was rejected. A revision application filed thereagainst
before the District and Sessions Judge, Neemuch was also dismissed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
4. The High Court, however, by reason of its impugned order, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Code), has quashed the criminal proceedings pending against it
holding:
(i) 15 days’ notice having not been served upon Respondent No. 1,
the same was not valid in law.
(ii) The complainant 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.
11. Mr. Jain relied upon a decision of this Court in Suman Sethi v. Ajay
K. Churiwal and Another [(2000) 2 SCC 380] wherein it was stated:
12. On this aspect of the matter, we may consider K.R. Indira v. Dr. G.
Adinarayana [(2003) 8 SCC 300] wherein this Court upon noticing Suman
Sethi (supra) stated the law, thus:
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.
14. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which
is dismissed accordingly.