Team  SoOLEGAL

SECTION 138 NI ACT - ADVOCATE NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED TO SEND A DEMAND NOTICE : Tripura High Court

Team SoOLEGAL 30 Apr 2019 4:16pm

SECTION 138 NI ACT - ADVOCATE NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED TO SEND A DEMAND NOTICE : Tripura High Court

Tripura High Court was dealing with the question that does the demand notice under Section 138 has to be necessarily sent through Advocate or not. The respondents contended before the Court that the demand notice which the petitioner had sent did not contain the signatures of his Advocate, and thus it is not a legally valid demand notice as per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

The matter of Subal Chandra Ghosh vs. State of Tripura was presented before Justice Arindam Lodh. He made an observation that the notice wa printed on the letter head of the petitioner's Advocate. Though he did not sign it, still the letter contained the complainant's endorsement  as the latter put his signature on every single page of the notice and he is the holder of cheques.

It was observed by single Judge bench that the judgments which were relied upon did not have a holding that a legally valid notice can be sent through Advocate only.

The Tripura High Court has thus held that under Section 138, it is not mandatory for a demand notice to be accompanied by the Advocate's permission.

Tagged: Tripura High Court   Section 138   Negotiable Instruments Act   Demand Notice   Justice Arindam Lodh  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 5 NO 0
Send
Digital Payment Systemview all

Active Members

Have you activated yours ?

New Members view all
×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.