Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

138 negotiable instruments act

(Querist) 27 February 2010 This query is : Resolved 
issued notice U/s.138(B) of the N.I. act to the accused, where he was running business. the notice returned with an endorsement, door always locked. does it amounts to service?
Parveen Kr. Aggarwal (Expert) 28 February 2010
Yes. It is deemed service of notice.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back unserved as door locked for several days - It must be deemed that notice has been served - Order returning complaint set aside with a direction to take the complaint on file and proceed in accordance with law. (Pavulmanickam Vs M.S.Jeyachandran) 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 622 (Madras) : 2007(1) Criminal Court Cases 942 (Madras)


Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back unserved with endorsement "addressee long absent and return to sender" - Order taking cognizance not liable to be quashed - However, the allegation that accused refused to receive notice even after due information given by postal authorities are matters for trial. (Asif Akbani Vs P.K.Mani) 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 184 (Madras) : 2007(4) Criminal Court Cases 221 (Madras)


Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through registered post at correct address - Notice received back 'unclaimed' - Held, notice is presumed to have been served. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma) 2007(3) Civil Court Cases 466 (Karnataka) : 2007(3) Criminal Court Cases 287 (Karnataka)


Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Service of notice - Where sender dispatched notice by post with correct address written on it, then presumption can be drawn that it is served on the addressee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non service. (Armstrong Builders & Developers Vs Vishvanath Naik) 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 707 (Bombay) : 2007(1) Criminal Court Cases 1099 (Bombay)

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma Advocate (Expert) 28 February 2010
expart mr. praveen has clerfy it . after this nothing more to say.
Guest (Expert) 01 March 2010
i do agree with experts


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :