K K RAVI Vs. V D KUTTAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should the notice of demand under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be issued such that the drawer shall receive the notice within the period of 30 days Is it sufficient if such notice is put into post within the said period of 30 days How is the expression "by giving a notice in writing .............. within thirty days of the receipt of information" in proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be understood Does the observation in Madhu v. Omega Pipes Ltd., 1994 1 KerLT 441 that such notice must be despatched "reasonably ahead of the expiry of fifteen days" oblige the complainant to despatch such notice in such time as to ensure receipt within 30 days These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration in this case.

(2.) Fundamental facts are not in dispute. The cheque dated 29/4/05 for Rs. 80,000/- was dishonoured on 3/5/05 and intimation was given of such dishonour on the same day. Notice of demand dated 1/6/05 was issued on 1/6/05. It was put into post on 1/6/05 and was received by the drawer on 4/6/05. If it is sufficient that despatch of the notice is made within 30 days, the notice is sufficient and proper. On the contrary, if despatch of the notice must be so made as to ensure receipt within 30 days, we will further have to consider the question whether a notice despatched on 1/6/05 would have ordinarily reached the complainant on or before 2/6/05.

(3.) Provisos (b) and (c) to Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are relevant. I extract the said clauses :