The Himachal Pradesh HC in the matter of Dolma Devi v/s Roshan Lal dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the decision of the trial court which ruled that the notice given after the cheque was bounced did not comply with the provisions of section 138 of Negotiable instrument act.
The court observed that it is essential to clearly make a demand in such notices as per the provisions of section 138 of the said Act.
The matter involves a notice which was given as a result of the cheque getting dishonored. The notice was however not held to be a notice under the said act as it did not fulfill the requirement of sec 138 of the said act.
The trial court had rejected the appellant’s complaint on the ground that the notice sent after the check was dishonored was not one as contemplated under the negotiable instruments Act as there was no mention of demand for money.
Thus, aggrieved by this the appellant approached the high court and contended that the trial court committed a mistake by not considering the notice as one under the negotiable instruments Act only on the ground that the line of demand for money was not written. It was contended that the trial court took a very technical approach and ignored that the notice was not a general notice but was one which was issued after the cheque was dishonored.
The High Court highlighted that the provisions of the said section have the words “makes a demand for payment of money by giving a notice in writing” and observed that the notice served by the appellant shows that it was served after the check was bound however as per the language of the said section it does make any demand for the payment of the amount.
The High Court held that the statutory provision clearly and strictly tells what should be and in what manner it should be stated in the notice and thus did not find any mistake in the findings of the trial court.
Written By: Amruta Pawar, Semester 6th, College: School of Law, The University of Mumbai Thane sub-campus.
