STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

A typographical error in legal notice proves costly for petitioner

Instead of the correct cheque No. 361868, it was mentioned as 361838 in the notice dated April 17, 2013 issued  by Velukannan to Mohamad Irfan in Alandur.

Published: 02nd January 2017 03:21 AM  |   Last Updated: 02nd January 2017 03:21 AM   |  A+A-

Express News Service

CHENNAI: A simple typographical error in mentioning the cheque number in a legal notice issued under the Negotiable Instruments Act has heavily cost a litigant, as his case was dismissed by a lower court and the High Court, as well.

Instead of the correct cheque No. 361868, it was mentioned as 361838 in the notice dated April 17, 2013 issued  by Velukannan to Mohamad Irfan in Alandur.

There is no mist or cloud or shroud or any manner of simmering doubt in regard to the language employed in Sec. 138 of the NI Act, Justice M Venugopal observed. Admittedly, the legal notice will have to be read in its entirety. In the present case, no correction notice was issued on behalf of the complainant to the accused. Certainly, the incorrect mentioning of the cheque in the notice did not fulfill the requirement under Sec. 138(b) of the NI Act. In as much as the notice was not in conformity with the cheque, as a legal corollary, the complaint filed by the appellant is per se not maintainable in law, the judge said and dismissed the appeal from Irfan, recently.

According to appellant, he had lent Rs 8 lakh to Velukannan, who returned Rs 2 lakh. For remaining Rs 6 lakh, he issued a cheque dated March 22, 2013, which bounced. Appellant issued a legal notice in which the cheque number was wrongly mentioned as 361838. He also lodged a complaint before JM-II in Alandur, mentioning the correct cheque No. However, the JM dismissed the complaint after saying that there was a technical defect and that the provisions of the NI Act were not followed. Hence, the present appeal.
“In view of the aforesaid qualitative and quantitative discussions, this court comes to a consequent conclusion that the appellant had not established his case beyond all reasonable doubt,” Justice Venugopal said and dismissed the appeal.



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp