Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Tripura HC in its decision held that there is no requirement in the Negotiable Instruments Act that the demand notice under Section 138 of the Act is to be sent through an advocate.
In the case of Subal Chandra Ghosh vs. the State of Tripura, one of its issues was that the demand notice which is sent by the complainant was not endorsed by the advocate. Further, it stated that since the demand notice did not contain the signature of the advocate so it is contrary to Section 138 of the NI Act.
Justice Arindam Lodh was of the view that provision-B of Section 138 is very plain and simple and it does not speak of any such condition that an advocate must endorse the demand notice. However, it is the payee or the holder who will make the demand in writing.
Basically, his observation relied on 2 judgments namely Suman Seth v. Ajay K Churiwal and Rahul Builder v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals.
Wherefore, answering the other issues also in favor of the complainant, the bench held that he has successfully made out a case of dishonor of the cheques.
86540
103860
630
114
59824