1. Under S. 138 of the Act, where a cheque issued by the drawer in the discharge of any debt or any other liability is returned by the bank unpaid, because the amount standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque, the said person is deemed to have committed an offence under this Section of The Act.
2. Above is subject to proviso to S. 138 which provides that the cheque should have been presented to the bank within the period of three months from the date of which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. The payee must also make a demand for the payment of the said amount by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque unpaid.
3. If despite this demand, the drawer fails to make the payment within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice, a cause of action arises for prosecuting him for the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Act.
4. S. 142 provides that the court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under S. 138 of the Act upon receipt of a complaint in writing made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. Such complaint must be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause (c) of the proviso to S.138.
5. However, discretion is given to the court to take cognizance of the complaint even after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within such period.
If above basics are understood then in reference to context;
After 15 days of said Notice which you say here that you have sent for replacement of non CTS cheque leaf and then if company 'A' does not issue CTS 2010 compliant cheque leaf as replacement then a case under S. 138 of The Act is still not made out right now in reference to context of your query but a case under S. 420 may then be made out is my opinion.