May 01, 2019
Case name: Shri Subal Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura & anr.
In the case, the Petitioner advanced loan to the respondent for the purpose of his business and eventually the respondent was unable to repay the loan. Consequently, the petitioner served statutory demand notice upon the respondent. The respondent did not respond to the notice on account of which the complainant filed complaint in the Trial Court.
The Trial Court dismissed the complaint inter alia holding that the demand notice sent by the complainant does not appear to have the endorsement of the advocate. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred revisional application. The respondent in the case has opposed the complaint on the ground that the demand notice was illegal as it did not contain the signature of the advocate who served it.
The High Court of Tripura however brushed aside the respondent’s contention and noted that the language of proviso-B of Section 138 is very plain and simple and it does not speak about that the notice is to be sent through advocate. It is the payee or the holder who will make the demand in writing.
The entire case can be accessed here.