Case:- Kaveri Plastics vs Mahdoom Bawa Bahruden Noorul
Citation:- 2025 INSC 1133
Date:- 19.09.2025
Hon’ble Supreme Court Bench:- CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA B.R. GAVAI & JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to be maintainable, the statutory notice of demand must precisely mention the cheque amount. If the amount mentioned in the demand notice varies from the cheque amount or it contains a typographical error, then the complaint is not maintainable.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to be valid, the statutory demand notice must mention the exact cheque amount. If the amount mentioned in the notice is different from the cheque amount or if the cheque amount is not mentioned at all, then the complaint is not maintainable in law.
- In the present case, the cheque was for ₹1 lakh, but the demand notice wrongly mentioned ₹2 lakh, though cheque details were correct. The complainant argued that it was a typographical mistake, but the Hon’ble Court rejected this contention, holding that even such errors are fatal to the validity of notice.
- The Hon’ble Court explained that the notice requirement under Proviso (b) to Section 138 is part of a penal statute, and therefore must be complied with strictly and precisely. The judgment clarified that even if cheque details (number, date etc.) are correct, the notice becomes invalid if the amount differs, as it creates ambiguity.
- The Hon’ble Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision to quash the complaint and dismissed the appeal, holding that the notice was invalid.
