METLON INDIA PVT LTD Vs. ESTER INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing summoning order dated 23rd September, 2008 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The sole ground argued before this court is that a demand notice u/s 138 N.I. Act should specify that the cheque amount should be paid within 15 days of receipt of notice whereas in the notice served by the complainant upon the petitioner payment of dishonoured cheque amount was demanded within 30 days instead of 15 days. It is stated that in view of this, the notice was bad in law and the summoning order should be quashed.

(3.) This court in Satyawan Chaplot vs. Rajendra; 1998 (4) Crimes 375 and German Remedies Ltd. vs. Harish C. Duggal Agencies; 1997 (1) RCR (Crl.) 412 has held that notice of demand suffers no illegality if the period demanding money stated in the notice was not 15 days. In M/s. Rahul Builders vs. M/s. Arihant Fertilizers; 2008 CLJ 452, the Supreme Court observed that Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act contemplates service of notice and payment of amount of cheque within 15 days from date of receipt of notice. It does not speak of 15 days notice. The notice was held to be a valid notice although the accused was asked to make payment only within 10 days instead of 15 days. In Hammanna S. Nayak vs. Vijay Kumar Kalani; 2000 CLJ 4438, it was held by Bombay High Court that period of 21 days' mentioned in demand notice will not make it illegal.