Good evening all

I am presenting case of Dalmiya cement vs galaxy traders

Case cheque dishonoured , which is a case of sec 138 of instrument negotiable act 1881.

S NO Incident Date
GALAXY TRADES & AGENCIES LTD. purchased goods which was cement from 26.05.1998
DALMIA CEMENT LTD and issued cheque for Rs.9.13 Lacs which was drawn
on a bank in Ernakulam Branch. On 26.05.1998

2.6.1998. The cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds in 2.6.1998.

respondent’s account

The information was communicated by the Bank to the complainant on

On 13.06.1998 The complainant issued a notice under Section 138 of the Act regarding the 13.06.1998
dishonour of the cheque and
calling upon the respondents to pay the said amount within a period of 15
days

M/S Galaxy Trades & Agencies Ltd. Responded that they had received 20.06.1998
empty envelopes without any contents and requested the appellant to mail
the contents.

Dalmia again presented the cheque on 1.7.1998 to the drawee bank 01.7.1998 /
through their bankers. 02.07 .1998
but
The cheque was again dishonoured by the drawee bank on 2.7.1998.

A registered statutory notice was issued to M/S Galaxy 27.07.1998

intimating the dishonour of the cheque and the payment was demanded.
The respondent received the said notice on 27.7.1998 but did not make the
payment.

the appellant filed the complaint on 9th Setpember, 1998 to the 09.09.1998
Additional CJM , Ernakulam took the cognizance and issued process
to the respondents.

Instead of appearing before the Magistrate, the respondents filed a

petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the
High Court praying for quashing the complaint & got successful

On the ground , that the appeal time has already passed as per the
section 139 of negotiable instrument act .
 The court observed that
Respondent tried to blow hot and cold in the same breath,
stating on the one hand that the notice of dishonour has not been
received by them and on the other praying for dismissal of the
complaint on the plea that the complaint was barred by time in
view of the notice served by the appellant which they had not
received.

The plea of the respondents was not only contradictory, and

thereby frustrate the provisions of law.
19 .01.2001
The High Court fell in error by not referring to the letter of the
respondents dated 20th June, 1998 and quashing the proceedings 

The accused have received the notice on 27.7.98.

The accused did not make any payment so far".

Finally

 appeal is allowed
 and the order of the High Court quashing the complaint filed
by the appellant is set aside.

 The trial Magistrate was directed to proceed against the

respondents as per the provisions of law

This is landmark judgement under negotiable instrument act 1881.

Responded tried to take benefit from loop hole of act 1881 & concealed the facts.

Thank You .