The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its recent judgment dated 19.09.2025 titled “KAVERI PLASTICS Vs MAHDOOM BAWA BAHRUDEEN NOORUL” dealt with a crucial issue regarding the validity of Notice U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 if the amount demanded in the Notice differs from the amount for which the cheque was issued and whether such discrepancy can be excused as typographical error?

The appeal before the Apex Court arose from an order of the High Court of Delhi which had quashed a criminal complaint on the ground that the Legal Notice issued U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was invalid in the eyes of law as the amount therein was at variance with the cheque amount.

The Apex Court while emphasizing the stringent provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act reiterated that compliance with the requirement under proviso (b) to Section 138 is a sine qua non for maintaining a complaint U/s 138 of NI Act. It was observed that issuance of valid Demand Notice is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive pre-condition for initiating a complaint U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Apex Court negated the contentions that incorrect cheque amount mentioned in operative para of the Notice was a typographical error and that the correct cheque number was mentioned in the Notice by stating as follows:

“Even if the cheque number was mentioned in the notice, since the amount was different, it created an ambiguity and differentiation about the ‘said amount’. The notice stood invalid and bad in law. The order of quashment of notice was eminently proper and legal.” (Para 10)

Accordingly, the Apex Court upheld the quashing of the complaint U/s 138 of NI Act, categorically holding that such discrepancies cannot be brushed aside as inadvertent or typographical mistakes, as they go to the root of the statutory requirement.

CONCLUSION:
This judgment reinforces a strict liability framework under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is important to understand that a statutory notice under Section 138 of the said Act serves a vital purpose as it affords the drawer of the cheque an opportunity to make payment of the “cheque amount” within the prescribed period and thereby avoid criminal prosecution. If the amount mentioned in the notice itself is incorrect or inconsistent with the cheque amount, such an opportunity becomes illusory and legally untenable. Consequently, the notice stands invalid, rendering the complaint not maintainable.