The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant on

16.05.2019 with respect to purchase and fixation of a solar system in the house of the applicant. It is also alleged that a cheque of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- bearing No. 60206 on 08.03.2019 was drawn, however, the same was dishonored on 15.03.2019 on account of insufficient funds thereafter on 27.03.2019, a statutory demand notice was issued which according to the complaint was returned back that the applicant was not residing in the house. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the complaint is time barred, particularly, when a perusal of the postal endorsement would reveal that the same was returned on

29.03.2019. He further submits that there are ample documents available on record that the solar system has not been installed that there is no question of legally or enforceable debt, thus, the summoning is vitiated and is being liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application while contending that once the cheque had been drawn then there happens to be a statutory presumption.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

6. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn by the applicant which was dishonored. The information about the dishonoring of the cheque as per the complaint is dated 15.03.2019. A statutory demand notice stood issued on 27.03.2019 and as per the recital contained in para 9, it was returned back, has not received on 01.04.2019 and the complaint was filed on 16.05.2019. The period of 15 days as mandated under Section 138 read with section 141 of the N.I. Act for the purposes of making payment post issuance of the statutory notice would commence from 02.04.2019 from the date of the information, thus, the complaint was filed within time.

7. As regards, the contention so sought to be raised regarding receiving or non-receiving of the statutory notice is concerned, these are the matter of trial as this much is to be recited that the legal notice was sent on correct address.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 12 SCC 685, in paragraph-10 and 11 has held as under: - "10. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business.

11. Applying the above conclusions to the facts of this case, it must be held that the High Court clearly erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no recital in the complaint that the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon the accused. The High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no proof either that the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed. That is a matter of evidence. We must mention that in C.C. Alavi Haji, this Court did not deviate from the view taken in Vinod Shivappa, but reiterated the view expressed therein with certain clarification. We have already quoted the relevant paragraphs from Vinod Shivappa where this Court has held that service of notice is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be premature at the stage of issuance of process to move the High Court for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. These observations are squarely attracted to the present case. The High Court?s reliance on an order passed by a two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours is misplaced. The order in Shakti Travel & Tours does not give any idea about the factual matrix of that case. It does not advert to rival submissions. It cannot be said therefore that it lays down any law. In any case in C.C. Alavi Haji, to which we have made a reference, the three- Judge Bench has conclusively decided the issue. In our opinion, the judgment of the two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours does not hold the field any more."

9. As regards, the contention raised that solar system has not been installed, thus, there is no question of legally enforceable debt is concerned, the same is a matter of trial as this Court is not required to go into the disputed question at this stage of summoning. In absence of pointing out the jurisdictional error, this Court is not required to interfere.

10. In view of the said discussion, no case is made out. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 A. Prajapati ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant on

16.05.2019 with respect to purchase and fixation of a solar system in the house of the applicant. It is also alleged that a cheque of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- bearing No. 60206 on 08.03.2019 was drawn, however, the same was dishonored on 15.03.2019 on account of insufficient funds thereafter on 27.03.2019, a statutory demand notice was issued which according to the complaint was returned back that the applicant was not residing in the house. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the complaint is time barred, particularly, when a perusal of the postal endorsement would reveal that the same was returned on

29.03.2019. He further submits that there are ample documents available on record that the solar system has not been installed that there is no question of legally or enforceable debt, thus, the summoning is vitiated and is being liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application while contending that once the cheque had been drawn then there happens to be a statutory presumption.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

6. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn by the applicant which was dishonored. The information about the dishonoring of the cheque as per the complaint is dated 15.03.2019. A statutory demand notice stood issued on 27.03.2019 and as per the recital contained in para 9, it was returned back, has not received on 01.04.2019 and the complaint was filed on 16.05.2019. The period of 15 days as mandated under Section 138 read with section 141 of the N.I. Act for the purposes of making payment post issuance of the statutory notice would commence from 02.04.2019 from the date of the information, thus, the complaint was filed within time.

7. As regards, the contention so sought to be raised regarding receiving or non-receiving of the statutory notice is concerned, these are the matter of trial as this much is to be recited that the legal notice was sent on correct address.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 12 SCC 685, in paragraph-10 and 11 has held as under: - "10. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business.

11. Applying the above conclusions to the facts of this case, it must be held that the High Court clearly erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no recital in the complaint that the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon the accused. The High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no proof either that the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed. That is a matter of evidence. We must mention that in C.C. Alavi Haji, this Court did not deviate from the view taken in Vinod Shivappa, but reiterated the view expressed therein with certain clarification. We have already quoted the relevant paragraphs from Vinod Shivappa where this Court has held that service of notice is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be premature at the stage of issuance of process to move the High Court for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. These observations are squarely attracted to the present case. The High Court?s reliance on an order passed by a two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours is misplaced. The order in Shakti Travel & Tours does not give any idea about the factual matrix of that case. It does not advert to rival submissions. It cannot be said therefore that it lays down any law. In any case in C.C. Alavi Haji, to which we have made a reference, the three- Judge Bench has conclusively decided the issue. In our opinion, the judgment of the two-Judge Bench in Shakti Travel & Tours does not hold the field any more."

9. As regards, the contention raised that solar system has not been installed, thus, there is no question of legally enforceable debt is concerned, the same is a matter of trial as this Court is not required to go into the disputed question at this stage of summoning. In absence of pointing out the jurisdictional error, this Court is not required to interfere.

10. In view of the said discussion, no case is made out. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 A. Prajapati ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad