Notice under section 138 of Negotiable instruments act

 NOTICE UNDER NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT 

While courts typically enforce the 30-day notice period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there have been some cases where courts have taken a lenient view based on specific circumstances. Although these cases are rare, here are a few judgments where courts have allowed a certain degree of flexibility or granted relief under exceptional circumstances:

1. N. Parameswaran Unni v. G. Kannan & Another (2017): The Supreme Court held that minor procedural lapses in sending notices under Section 138, such as minor delays, could be condoned if they did not affect the core purpose of the notice—providing an opportunity for the drawer to make the payment. However, this is considered an exception, and the delay was very minimal.

2. K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Another (1999): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that compliance with the procedural timeline under Section 138 should be evaluated in a practical context. The court interpreted that certain procedural lapses could be overlooked if they did not impact the drawer's ability to respond to the demand notice or defend himself in court. The court held that strict compliance with the technicalities should not override substantive justice.

3. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal & Another (2012): Here, the Supreme Court recognized that there could be situations where delays are not intentional and are due to unforeseen circumstances. The court suggested that such cases could be approached with a more pragmatic interpretation, provided the delay was minor and did not prejudice the rights of the drawer.

4. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & Another (2007): Although this case did not directly condone a late notice, the Supreme Court observed that if the notice was served and received by the drawer, the purpose of the law—to provide an opportunity to pay—was fulfilled. This ruling implies that minor procedural defects could sometimes be overlooked if the drawer had an opportunity to settle the matter.

While these judgments suggest some scope for leniency, they are often applied in unique or exceptional cases where the delay was minimal and did not affect the substantive rights of the parties involved.

N. Parameswaran Unni v. G. Kannan & Another (2017): The Supreme Court held that minor procedural lapses in sending notices under Section 138, such as minor delays, could be condoned if they did not affect the core purpose of the notice—providing an opportunity for the drawer to make the payment. However, this is considered an exception, and the delay was very minimal.

2. K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Another (1999): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that compliance with the procedural timeline under Section 138 should be evaluated in a practical context. The court interpreted that certain procedural lapses could be overlooked if they did not impact the drawer's ability to respond to the demand notice or defend himself in court. The court held that strict compliance with the technicalities should not override substantive justice.