Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahruden Noorul, 2025
This decision reaffirms the mandatory nature of the demand notice as a condition precedent for invoking Section 138 NI Act.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
22 September 2025
Judges
Chief Justice BR Gavai & Justice NV Anjaria
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque.
-
The cheque in question was for ₹1 lakh, and its details were correctly mentioned in the statutory demand notice.
-
However, the amount demanded in the notice was ₹2 lakh.
-
The High Court quashed the complaint on the ground that the notice did not correctly state the cheque amount, making it invalid under the law.
-
The appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the discrepancy was a typographical error.
Issues
-
Is a complaint under Section 138 NI Act maintainable if the demand notice mentions an amount different from the cheque amount?
-
Can a typographical error in stating the amount in the statutory notice be excused under the NI Act?
-
What is the degree of strictness required in complying with Proviso (b) to Section 138?
Held
-
A demand notice under Proviso (b) to Section 138 NI Act must demand precisely the cheque amount.
-
Any deviation, even a typographical error, invalidates the notice.
-
Since the statutory requirement was not complied with, the complaint was rightly quashed.
Analysis
-
This decision reaffirms the mandatory nature of the demand notice as a condition precedent for invoking Section 138 NI Act.
-
The Court emphasized the penal nature of the provision, requiring strict interpretation and compliance.
-
It draws a clear line: "substantial compliance" is not enough—exactitude in legal notices is essential.
-
The Court rejected the plea of inadvertence or typographical mistake, saying "the rigours of law on this score being strict, the defence would not hold good."
-
By referencing Suman Sethi, the Court reiterated that while interest/costs may be claimed, the core demand must clearly and separately specify the exact cheque amount.