Case Note: Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul

Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal Nos. ___ of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 11184–11185/2024)
Decided on 19 September 2025
Coram: B.R. Gavai, CJI and N.V. Anjaria, J.

Facts

• The appellant, Kaveri Plastics, entered into an MoU with Nafto Gaz India Pvt. Ltd. relating to sale of land.

• Towards part liability, a cheque for ₹1,00,00,000/- was issued by the accused company.

• The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.

• The complainant issued statutory notices under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), but demanded ₹2,00,00,000/-, instead of the actual cheque amount.

• The complainant later contended that this was a typographical error.

The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the accused’s plea for discharge, but the High Court of Delhi quashed the complaint, holding that the notice was invalid as the demand amount did not match the cheque.

Issues

1. Whether a demand notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act is valid if it mentions an amount different from the cheque amount.

2. Whether a typographical error in stating the amount can be excused in law.

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Notice must strictly demand the cheque amount

   • The phrase “said amount of money” in Section 138(b) refers specifically to the cheque amount.

   • Any notice demanding a sum different from the cheque amount fails to satisfy the statutory requirement.

2. Typographical error no defence

   • Even if the wrong amount is due to inadvertence, such a notice is invalid.

   • Penal statutes like Section 138 must be strictly construed; compliance must be meticulous.

3. Strict interpretation of penal statutes

   • The Court reiterated that offences under Section 138, though arising from civil transactions, are criminal in nature and require exact adherence to statutory conditions.

Significance

This judgment emphasizes that precision in statutory notices under Section 138 is mandatory. Even minor errors—such as an incorrect amount—can result in quashing of the complaint. It serves as a caution for complainants and their counsel to carefully draft legal notices in cheque bounce cases.

Endnotes (Case Law References)

1. Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal (2000) 2 SCC 380 – Held that demand in the notice must be for the cheque amount; additional claims are permissible only if severable.

2. Central Bank of India v. Saxons Farms (1999) 8 SCC 221 – Object of notice is to give drawer an opportunity to make good the payment.

3. K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana (2003) 8 SCC 300 – Specific demand for cheque amount is necessary; absence renders notice invalid.

4. Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals (2008) 2 SCC 321 – Service of valid notice is mandatory; notice demanding a different amount invalid.

5. Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel (2023) 1 SCC 578 – “Said amount” refers only to cheque amount.

6. Chhabra Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhagwan Dass, Crl. Appeal No.1772-SB/2002 (P&H HC) – Typographical error in cheque number does not save notice.

7. K. Gopal v. T. Mukunda, Crl. Appeal No.1011/2010 (Karnataka HC) – Notice defective where demand amount differed; typographical error no excuse.

8. Sunglo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. v. State & Ors., MANU/DE/3805/2021 (Delhi HC) – Notice invalid where demand was double the cheque amount.

9. M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala AIR 1963 SC 1116 – Penal statutes must be strictly construed.

10. K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora (2009) 10 SCC 48 – Strict literal compliance required for penal statutes; no room for inferential compliance.

Download PDF of Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul