SHAHNAWAZ Y. RAIS Vs. ADIL KHALIL BHURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this petition are quite peculiar and can be stated in brief as under :

(2.) The petitioner and his wife apparently advanced a loan of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rs. Three crore) to Respondent No.1. To repay the loan, Respondent No.1 issued six cheques in favour of the petitioner and his wife Mrs. Jabeen. I am told across the bar that three cheques were issued in favour of the petitioner and three cheques were issued in favour of his wife Jabeen. The cheques got bounced. Surprisingly the petitioner alone issued a notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, demanding the amount of Rs.Three crore from Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, in reply, took a specific defence and denied his liability.

(3.) Since the amount demanded through the legal notice was not paid by respondent No.1, the petitioner and his wife Jabeen filed one complaint, pursuant to the notice given by the petitioner alone. The question is whether such a complaint is viable and maintainable. It is obvious that the notice was defective because it was not issued on behalf of Mrs. Jabeen also. It is argued that this notice cannot be said to be defective to the extent of the cause of action that arose in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner did receive some cheques from respondent No. 1 and these cheques were bounced. The petitioner gave notice, served it properly and respondent No. 1 did not repay the amount. So at least to the extent of the petitioner alone the cause of action had arisen. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to suggest that the complaint would survive and it should be allowed to continue to the extent of the cause of action that arose in favour of the petitioner in respect of the cheques which he had received. He also urged that the court should be lenient to take this view because the petitioner is the victim of this crime.