9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Madhu v. Omega Pipes Ltd., (1994 (1) KLT 441) that such notice must be despatched reasonably ahead of the expiry of fifteen days oblige the complainant to despatch such notice in such time as to ensure receipt within 30 days? These are the interesting questions that arise for consideration in this case. Fundamental facts are not in dispute. The cheque dated 29/4/05 for ₹ 80,000/- was dishonoured on 3/5/05 and intimation was given of such dishonour on the same day. Notice of demand dated 1/6/05 was issued on 1/6/05. It was put into post on 1/6/05 and was received by the drawer on 4/6/05. If it is sufficient that despatch of the notice is made within 30 days, the notice is sufficient and proper. On the contrary, if despatch of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he receipt by the drawer is after the said period. But his Lordship in para-6 of the said decision posed the following question and finally answered the same in para-7 in the following words: 6. ...Is it enough that he sends it just two or three days before the end of the said period since the postal authority, would take the notice to the address with reasonable despatch and promptitude? 7. ...Hence the realistic interpretation for the expression giving notice in the present context is that if the payee has despatched notice in the correct address of the drawer reasonably ahead of the expiry of fifteen days, it can be regarded that he made the demand by giving notice Within the statutory period. 4. The learned counsel for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egislative goals, dreams and vision must be imbibed by the interpreter. He must resonate to the frequency of the legislature. 6. While proviso (b) to Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act speaks of giving the notice, proviso (c) refers to the act of receipt. The different acts contemplated under the provisos (b) and (c) have to be performed within the time specified in those provisos. Inevitably and unmistakably we find that the law did contemplate notice in writing to be issued by post. Sec. 94 of the Negotiable Instruments Act speaks of the modes in which notice has to be given and notice by post is a perfectly legal method by which notice can be given. I extract Sec. 94 of the N.I. Act below: 94. Mode in which notice may be gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstitute the act of giving in Sec. 138(b) it is enough if notice in writing is put into post before the expiry of 30 days. Even if it were done immediately prior to mid night on the 30th day, that would be sufficient compliance of the mandate of Sec. 138(b) of the Negotiable Instalments Act. So far as the period of limitation for payment under proviso (c) is concerned, it is the date of receipt of the said notice which is crucial and vital. His Lordship Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas was not concerned in Madhu v. Omega Pipes Ltd., (1994 (1) KLT 441) with the situation which we have on hand at present. The question raised in para 6 and the answer given in para-7 do eminently convey this fact. In holding that the notice has to be despatched reasona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
