Demand Notice U/s 138 NI Act Need Not Be Sent Through An Advocate: Tripura HC [Read Judgment]

The Tripura High Court has 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.

One of the issues raised before the High Court in Subal Chandra Ghosh vs. State of Tripura, was that the demand notice sent by the complainant does not contain the endorsement of the advocate. It was contended before the court that demand notice did not contain the signature of the advocate who served it and thus it did not confirm the requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Justice Arindam Lodh observed that the notice, though printed in a letter pad of an Advocate (who did not sign it), contain the endorsement of complainant as he put his signature on every pages of the notice being the holder of the cheques. The judge observed:

The language of proviso-B of Section 138 is very plain and simple and it does not speak about that the notice is to be sent through advocate. It is the payee or the holder who will make the demand in writing.

Two judgments which were relied on to contend that this notice does not confirm the requirements of Section 138 NI Act., are Suman Seth vs. Ajay K. Churiwal and Rahul Builders vs Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals. The judge observed that neither of these judgments have held that the notice have to be served through only the Advocate. The said authorities only laid the principles that the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act have to be followed and the contents about the amount of the cheque and demand of cost, interest and other expenses must be in specific terms to subserve the requirements of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the court said.

Answering the other issues also in favour of the complainant, the bench held that he has successfully made out a case of dishonour of cheques. 

Read Judgment