Delhi High Court
M/S Melton India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs M/S Ester Industries Ltd. on 28 July, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Criminal M.C. No.2219 of 2010 & Crl. M.A. No.8680 of 2010
% 28.07.2010
M/S. METLON INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Iqbal Ashraf Rahmani, Advocate.
Versus
M/S. ESTER INDUSTRIES LTD. ......Respondent
Reserved on: 15th July, 2010
Pronounced on: 28th July, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing summoning order
dated 23rd September, 2008 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The sole ground argued before this court is that a demand notice u/s 138 N.I. Act
should specify that the cheque amount should be paid within 15 days of receipt of notice
whereas in the notice served by the complainant upon the petitioner payment of
dishonoured cheque amount was demanded within 30 days instead of 15 days. It is stated
that in view of this, the notice was bad in law and the summoning order should be
quashed.
3. This court in Satyawan Chaplot vs. Rajendra; 1998 (4) Crimes 375 and German
Remedies Ltd. vs. Harish C. Duggal Agencies; 1997 (1) RCR (Crl.) 412 has held that
notice of demand suffers no illegality if the period demanding money stated in the notice
was not 15 days. In M/s. Rahul Builders vs. M/s. Arihant Fertilizers; 2008 CLJ 452, the
Supreme Court observed that Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act contemplates
service of notice and payment of amount of cheque within 15 days from date of receipt of
notice. It does not speak of 15 days notice. The notice was held to be a valid notice
although the accused was asked to make payment only within 10 days instead of 15 days.
In Hammanna S. Nayak vs. Vijay Kumar Kalani; 2000 CLJ 4438, it was held by Bombay
High Court that period of 21 days' mentioned in demand notice will not make it illegal.
4. I, therefore, consider that merely because the complainant demanded payment of
the dishonoured cheque amount from the petitioners within 30 days instead of 15 days,
the notice sent by the complainant would not become illegal. This petition has no force
and is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee. In case the cost is not deposited, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate before whom proceedings are pending, shall recover this cost from the
accused and get it deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Non-
deposit of cost shall entail necessary legal consequences.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
[JUDGE]
JULY 28, 2010
'AA'
