15 January 2012
Dear Mr. Arunagiri, In the case cited by you, M/s. Galaxy Traders had taken a stand that they only received an empty envolepe - and not any notice. Since the first notice was not served / issued in the eyes of law, the question of any subsequent notice in effect would be the first notice. Hence the decision. If only Galaxy Traders had said that they had received the notice in the first instance, then Dalmia could not have issued the second notice. The decision of the SC would be completely different.
15 January 2012
Mr.Ramachandran and learned friends,
I have gone through various case laws on the second notice. Every case is having its uniqueness and is being decided based on its merits. New ruling is coming out every day.
I just pointed out that in some cases the Supreme Court had allowed the 138 case, with second notice.
Likewise there are chances to allow in this case also, as the accused had committed endorsed his liability after the first notice.
In fact the NI Act does not speak about the representation and notice after that. New decisions are coming based on the new facts.
Even in Galaxy traders case, the Supreme Court could have concluded that the post which was sent is not empty, (under the presumption of General Clauses Act) it contained the notice sent by the complainant.
So, in this case, the accused received the notice, committed to pay and failed to pay. By this the liability is renewed. So, the representation of the cheque after the failure to honour the commitment, gives a fresh room for the case. So, the notice after the representation is valid.
Even at this point, I strongly feel that this case will be allowed.