It was decided by the Kerela High Court that, the omission or error in the notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is the mention of the nature of the debt in notice does not make it invalid. Along with that it was observed that, there lies no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability.
There is no statutory mandate that the notice shall include the nature of the debt or liability. Hence, the error in notice to mention the nature of the debt or liability, does not render it invalid. Further, the nature of the debt is disclosed in the complaint. Also there is no affirmation that the cheque was issued in discharge of the amount allegedly borrowed by him from the complainant. The Court decided that, there is no need to make any specific averments in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability.
86540
103860
630
114
59824
