{"id":223317,"date":"2019-12-17T09:30:22","date_gmt":"2019-12-17T04:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=223317"},"modified":"2019-12-23T11:08:33","modified_gmt":"2019-12-23T05:38:33","slug":"bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Bom HC | The day on which accused refused to accept the demand notice is to be excluded while counting the 15 days period contemplated under S. 138(c) NI Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while allowing a writ petition, quashed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed against the petitioner in a cheque dishonour\u00a0case. It was held that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant could not be treated as a “complaint” in the eyes of law.<\/p>\n

The complainant, in her complaint, had alleged that the petitioner had taken a loan from her, which he failed to repay. He issued a cheque for the discharge of the said liability, which was dishonoured on presenting for encashment. Therefore, she filed the subject complaint before the Magistrate against the petitioner.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant petition praying for quashing of the complaint against him. His counsel, M.D. Thube-Mhase, submitted that when, as per the contents of the complaint, the accused had refused to accept the notice on 3-1-2017, the period of 15 days for the compliance after the service or refusal of the notice would have been till 18-1-2017, and the complainant could have filed the complaint on or after 19-1-2017 within the statutory period. However, when she has filed the complaint on 18-1-2017 itself, it cannot be taken as a complaint, and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed.<\/p>\n

Per contra, A.N. Gaddime and A.V. Indrale Patil, counsel for the complainant, contended that though the complaint was filed on 18-1-2017, the complaint was registered on the next date, i.e., 19-1-2017, and the cognizance was taken by order of issuing process on 15-04-2017, therefore the complaint was maintainable.<\/p>\n

The High Court considered the law as laid down in\u00a0Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey,\u00a0<\/em>(2014) 10 SCC 713<\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court disapproved the view that if the complaint under Section 138 is filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date on which notice has been served on the drawer\/accused, the same is premature and if on the date of taking cognizance a period of 15 days from the date of service of notice on the drawer\/accused has expired, such complaint was legally maintainable.<\/p>\n

Finally, observing that\u00a0the date of 15th day or conversely the day on which the refusal was there should be excluded,\u00a0<\/strong>the High Court held that complaint, which was filed on 18-1-2017, was definitely premature, i.e., before the expiry of 15 days of the refusal of the notice. Therefore, it was held, that the subject complaint could not be treated as a “complaint” in the eyes of law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the complaint was quashed. [Afroj Khan v. Mandodra,\u00a02019 SCC OnLine Bom 5422<\/a>,<\/b> decided on 12-12-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court:\u00a0Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while allowing a writ petition, quashed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":74381,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3726,31402,2862,3301,23584],"class_list":["post-223317","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cognizance","tag-demand-notice","tag-dishonour_of_cheque","tag-liability","tag-section-138-ni-act"],"yoast_head":"\nBom HC | The day on which accused refused to accept the demand notice is to be excluded while counting the 15 days period contemplated under S. 138(c) NI Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bom HC | The day on which accused refused to accept the demand notice is to be excluded while counting the 15 days period contemplated under S. 138(c) NI Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court:\u00a0Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while allowing a writ petition, quashed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-12-17T04:00:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-12-23T05:38:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/\",\"name\":\"Bom HC | The day on which accused refused to accept the demand notice is to be excluded while counting the 15 days period contemplated under S. 138(c) NI Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-12-17T04:00:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-12-23T05:38:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bom HC | The day on which accused refused to accept the demand notice is to be excluded while counting the 15 days period contemplated under S. 138(c) NI Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bom HC | The day on which accused refused to accept the demand notice is to be excluded while counting the 15 days period contemplated under S. 138(c) NI Act | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bom HC | The day on which accused refused to accept the demand notice is to be excluded while counting the 15 days period contemplated under S. 138(c) NI Act","og_description":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while allowing a writ petition, quashed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-12-17T04:00:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-12-23T05:38:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/","name":"Bom HC | The day on which accused refused to accept the demand notice is to be excluded while counting the 15 days period contemplated under S. 138(c) NI Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","datePublished":"2019-12-17T04:00:22+00:00","dateModified":"2019-12-23T05:38:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","width":1331,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/17\/bom-hc-the-day-on-which-accused-refused-to-accept-the-demand-notice-is-to-be-excluded-while-counting-the-15-days-period-contemplated-under-s-138c-ni-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bom HC | The day on which accused refused to accept the demand notice is to be excluded while counting the 15 days period contemplated under S. 138(c) NI Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":231311,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/24\/dishonour-of-cheque-mp-hc-director-managing-director-joint-director-other-officers-and-employees-of-a-company-can-not-be-prosecuted-under-s-138-of-ni-act-unless-the-company-is-impleaded-as-an-acc\/","url_meta":{"origin":223317,"position":0},"title":"[Dishonour of Cheque] MP HC | Director\/MD\/JD\/other officers and employees of a company can not be prosecuted under S. 138 of NI Act unless the company is impleaded as an accused","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 24, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court:\u00a0Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J., while addressing a matter with regard to dishonour of cheque held that, Director\/Managing Director\/Joint Director\/other officers and employees of company can not be prosecuted under Section 138 of NI Act unless the company is impleaded as an accused Petitioner is aggrieved with the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":218529,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/23\/del-hc-complaint-under-s-138-ni-act-dismissed-for-non-prosecution-restored-considering-that-clerk-of-complainants-counsel-noted-wrong-date\/","url_meta":{"origin":223317,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | Complaint under S. 138 NI Act dismissed for non-prosecution restored considering that clerk of complainant’s counsel noted wrong date","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 23, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Mukta Gupta, J. allowed a petition filed against the order of the trial Judge whereby the petitioner's complaint filed for the commission of offence under Section 138\u00a0(dishonour of cheque)\u00a0of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner had advanced a loan to the respondent who\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":370991,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/26\/hc-roving-enquiry-debt-liability-quashing-section-138-ni-act-complaint-supreme-court-section-482-crpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":223317,"position":2},"title":"High Court Cannot Conduct Roving Enquiry into Debt or Liability While Quashing Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cUnder Section 139 of the NI Act, there is a presumption that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 NI Act for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. This presumption can be rebutted by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Enquiry into Debt or Liability","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Enquiry-into-Debt-or-Liability.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Enquiry-into-Debt-or-Liability.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Enquiry-into-Debt-or-Liability.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Enquiry-into-Debt-or-Liability.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258158,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/06\/dishonour-of-cheque-6\/","url_meta":{"origin":223317,"position":3},"title":"When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 6, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: Bhola Pandit, XX Addl. CMM, convicted a person who presented a cheque to repay a loan but the same was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Instant complaint was filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal procedure against the accused of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/City-Civil-Court-Bengaluru.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266804,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/13\/law-on-liability-of-guarantor-dishonour-of-cheque-section-138-ni-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":223317,"position":4},"title":"Liability of Guarantor for Cheque Dishonour: Can lender enforce his right against either principal borrower or his guarantor? Dwarka Courts answers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Dwarka Courts, Delhi: Rahul Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, while addressing a matter regarding dishonour of cheque, held that mere assertion of non-receipt of legal notice cannot help the accused in escaping liability under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was alleged in complaint that accused had approached the complainant to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/Dwarka-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214465,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/08\/tri-hc-purpose-of-demand-notice-under-s-138-ni-act-not-to-demand-payment-but-to-inform-the-party-of-broken-contract-and-liability-to-pay\/","url_meta":{"origin":223317,"position":5},"title":"Tri HC | Purpose of demand notice under S. 138 NI Act \u2013 not to demand payment, but to inform the party of broken contract and liability to pay","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Tripura High Court: The Bench of Arindam Lodh, J. allowed a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set aside the lower courts\u2019 order acquitting the accused in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Petitioner\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223317","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223317"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223317\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223317"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223317"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}