Maa Tarini Industries Ltd. and vs PEC LIMITED CRLMC 254/20 20/01/20 [ Rajnish JJ ]

[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

• NI ACT Section 138 Dishonour of Cheque Notice Contention that the notice is defective as the demand has been made over and above the cheque amount and the legal demand notice is vague and ambiguous, so the notice being defective, the complaint is liable to be dismissed

Held that notice is to be read as a whole Perusal of the notice clearly set out the details of the cheque which have been dishonoured, so it cannot be said that the demand made is ambiguous or in any way confusing the petitioners as there is no denial that the cheque in question were not issued or that they were not dishonoured for insufficient funds. [ Para 9]

9. The arguments of the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that notice is confusing qua the amount claimed and there is an ambiguity, in my opinion, the Ld. revisional Court has rightly held that notice is to be read as a whole. The perusal of the notice clearly set out the details of the cheque which have been dishonoured, so it cannot be said that the demand made is ambiguous or in any way confusing the petitioners as there is no denial that the cheuqe in question were not issued or that they were not dishonoured for insufficient funds. There is no dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid down in the judgments “supras” relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners but with due regards, the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. A learned single judge of this court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State & Anr., ILR (2012) 3 Del 99 accepted such objections in another similarly placed petition under Section 482 Cr. PC observing thus :-

“5. The issue regarding filing of petition before the High Court after having availed first revision petition before the Court of Sessions has come up before the Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly. While laying that section 397(3) Cr. P.C. laid statutory bar of second revision petition, the courts have held that High Court did enjoy inherent power under section 82 (sic) Cr. P.C. as well to entertain petitions even in those cases. But, that power was to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, particularly, when the person approaching the High Court has already availed remedy of first revision in the Sessions Court. This was not that in every case the person aggrieved of the order of the first revision court would have the right to be heard by the High Court to assail the same order which was the subject matter of the revision before Sessions Court. It was all to depend not only on the facts and circumstances of each case, but as to whether the impugned order bring about a situation which is an abuse of process of court or there was serious miscarriage of justice or the mandatory provisions of law were not complied with. The power could also be exercised by this Court if there was an apparent mistake committed by the revisional court. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limave v. State of Maharashtra(1977) 4 SCC 551, State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Aggarwal, (1979) 2 SCC 305 : AIR 1979 SC 87, Rai Kapoor v. State (Delhi Administration)1980 Cri. L.J. 202, Krishnan v. Krishnaveni and Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (2005) 2 SCC 571.”

For read the judgment click here 

MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. VS PEC LIMITED

all rights reserved (𝔸𝕕𝕧 Vaibhav Tomar)