Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)

C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007

10/ The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed reported in 2008(1) MPLJ SC 441 has held that before filing the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, giving a demand notice to the drawer in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act is mandatory. In the instant case complainant/respondent Santosh Kumar has categorically stated that he has sent a notice (Ex.P/3) to the petitioner by registered post and postal receipt is Ex.P/4 and postal acknowledgement is Ex.P/5, which was signed by the petitioner. Defence witness Biharilal also admits that notice sent by the complainant has been received on 17.8.2011 by the petitioner, but they did not reply to the same. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no transaction between both the parties, cannot be relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 4985 - D K Jain - Full Document
1