Ganeshprabhu Adv Madurai: The demand notice has been sent after the mandatory time period of thirty days as prescribed u/s.138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, while so, the cognizance of the impugned complaint is illegal and bad in law.

by Sekar Reporter · November 13, 2022

[11/13, 12:43] Ganeshprabhu Adv Madurai: The demand notice has been sent after the mandatory time period
of thirty days as prescribed u/s.138 (b) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, while so, the cognizance of the impugned
complaint is illegal and bad in law.

B) The Respondent failed to mention the date of alleged loan
payment to the Petitioner in his demand notice and rejoinder
notice even after it was specifically by the Petitioner in his reply
notice.

C) There is no legal liability on the part of the Respondent towards
the Petitioner when the Respondent failed to state the date in
which he paid the alleged loan to the Petitioner and there is no
cause of action for the complaint.

D) The impugned complaint has been filed after the expiry of the
mandatory period of one month as prescribed in the section.142
(b) r/w.138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

E) Since the Respondent is an advocate practicing in the trial court in
which the impugned trial proceedings going on, the Petitioner is
facing undue influence and threat from the respondent and his
colloquies.

F) There is no relationship between the Petitioner and the respondent
and the trial is a harassment for the Petitioner and it has been
initiated by the Respondent to extort money from the Petitioner.
[11/13, 12:47] Sekarreporter 1: 👍👍