The Tripura High Court has held that it is not necessary to send a demand notice for cheque bounce through an advocate under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In the present case, the issue raised before the Court was that the demand notice sent by the complainant was not sent through an Advocate and did not contain the endorsement of a lawyer. The lawyer for the respondent had also pleaded before the Court that the notice did not contain the signature of a lawyer on whose name it was served, therefore, not complying with the requirements of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
In this regard, the Court has observed that though the notice did not contain an endorsement by the advocate on whose letter pad it was printed, however, every page of the notice was signed by the complainant being the holder of the cheques. It has further observed that section 138 of the NI Act does not make it a requirement for the notice to be sent through an advocate and it is the payee or the holder of the cheques who has to make the demand in writing.
While observing two landmark judgments on the issue, the court has also observed that none of them have held that the notice has to be sent through an advocate. It has stated that the ingredients of section 138 of NI Act, such as the amount of the cheque, the demand of cost, interest and other expenses must be specifically stated in compliance to the Act.
Thus, while deciding the case in favour of the complainant, the Court has held that a case for dishonor of cheques has been successfully made out by the complainant.
637+ Lawyers are online 
.jpg)
.jpg)
