Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 223 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Central Bank Of India And Anr vs Saxons Farms And Ors on 7 October, 1999

Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel on 12 January, 2022

16. The Apex Court in case of Central Bank of India & Another vs. Saxons Farms & Others [1999(8) SCC 221] has held that the object of the notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act is to give a chance to the drawer of the cheque to rectify his omission and also to protect the honest drawer, if the drawer of the cheque is asked to pay more than the Page 83 of 84 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 09:22:49 IST 2022 R/CR.A/1488/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022 principal amount due from him and that amount is demanded as principal sum paid by him, it is not possible for the honest drawer to meet with such a requirement.
Gujarat High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Malhotra vs Sanjeev on 9 December, 2024

In Central Bank of India & Another vs. Saxons Farms & Others (8) SCC 221, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that the object of the notice under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instrument Act is to give a chance to the drawer of the cheque to rectify his omission and also to protect the honest drawer. If the drawer of the cheque is asked to pay more than the principal amount due from him and that amount is demanded as the principal sum payable by him, it is not possible for an honest drawer of the cheque to meet such a requirement.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Burramsetti Venkataramana vs Grandhi Balaji on 3 March, 2026

"8. As was observed by this Court in Central Bank of India v. Saxons Farms [(1999) 8 SCC 221 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1411] the object of the notice is to give a chance to the drawer of the cheque to rectify his omission. The demand in the notice has to be in relation to "said amount of money" as 1 (1999) 8 SCC 221 2 (2003) 8 SCC 300 9 Crl.R.C.No.748 of 2022 03.03.2026 Dr.YLR,J described in the provision. The expression "payment of any amount of money" as appearing in the main portion of Section 138 of the Act goes to show that it needs to be established that the cheque was drawn for the purpose of discharging in whole or in part of any debt or any liability, even though the notice as contemplated may involve demands for compensation, costs, interest etc. The drawer of the cheque stands absolved from his liability under Section 138 of the Act if he makes the payment of the amount covered by the cheque of which he was the drawer within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice or before the complaint is filed."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kaveri Plastics vs Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul on 19 September, 2025

5.2.4 It was further observed that however if in the notice an ambiguous demand is made without specifying the due amount under the dishonoured cheque, the notice would fail to meet the legal requirement. In other words, what was pinpointed was that the words ‘said amount’ in Proviso (b) has to be same amount of the cheque which is dishonoured. The object of the notice under Proviso (b) of Section 138 of the Act was explained by this Court in Central Bank of India vs. Saxons Farms & Ors.5, observing that the purpose of the notice is to give a chance to the drawer of the cheque to rectify his omission. Once the defaulter makes payment of the amount covered by the cheque as mentioned in the notice within stipulated 15 days, he would stand absolved from his liability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

T.R.Pachamuthu vs M/S.M.M.Finance Corporation on 30 August, 2013

The Hon'ble Supreme Court by duly analysing the issue, in the light of earlier Supreme Court decisions reported in 1999 (8) SCC 221 Central Bank of India V. Saxons Farms and others; 2000 (2) SCC 380 Suman Sethi V. Ajay K.Churiwal and another, is of the view that the notice though consolidated is perfect as it does not contain any demand for payment of the amount covered by the bounced cheque and such demand is conspicuously absent, as such the complaint based on such notice is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has while doing so, observed that non compliance with the demand for payment of cheque amount, being the only incriminating circumstance which exposes the drawer for being proceeded against under Section 138 of the Act, the making of such demand in the notice is the statutorily envisaged demand and the absence of the same does invalidate the notice. It is further observed therein that the object of the notice is to give a chance to drawer of the cheque to rectify the omission to discharge the liability, as such, the demand has to be in relation to said amount of money as described in the provision.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - K B Vasuki - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next