"Plain language of S.138 is very Clear" : Supreme Court

 "Plain language of S.138 is very Clear" : Supreme Court

Many cases have been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In context of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 it has been commented at page 11 and 12 of Kirshna Texport & Capital Markets Ltd v Ila A. Agarwal & Ors [2015] GCtR 2645 (SC) thus : 

"According to Section 138, where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him is returned by the Bank unpaid for reasons mentioned in said Section such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence. The proviso to the Section stipulates three conditions on the satisfaction of which the offence is said to be completed. The proviso inter alia obliges the payee to make a demand for the payment of said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to “the drawer of the cheque” and if “the drawer of the cheque” fails to make the payment of the said amount within 15 days of the receipt of said notice, the stages stipulated in the proviso stand fulfilled. The notice under Section 138 is required to be given to “the drawer” of the cheque so as to give the drawer an opportunity to make the payment and escape the penal consequences. No other person is contemplated by Section 138 as being entitled to be issued such notice. The plain language of Section 138 is very clear and leaves no room for any doubt or ambiguity. There is nothing in Section 138 which may even remotely suggest issuance of notice to anyone other than the drawer."

Full Text Judgments of Supreme Court can be downloaded free of cost from the website - https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering, for example, the date of the Judgment as "6 May 2015".

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.