The High Court was of the view that the decision of the High Court on which reliance was placed by Magistrate was distinguishable.
Respondent No.
Thereafter within 15 days of return of the cheque, respondent No.
C/1661/96.
As the appellant failed to meet the demand, a companyplaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
2 the State of West Bengal.
2000 1 SCR 601 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PHUKAN, J. Leave granted.
1611/97.
The High Court held that as in numberice, respondent No.
1 gave a numberice of demand as required under proviso b to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, for short the Act .
On perusal of the above numberice, the Magistrate was of the view that the demand made in the numberice being higher than the amount of the cheque , numberice was bad in view of an earlier decision of the High Court.
1 clearly demanded the cheque amount, the numberice was a valid one and accordingly set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
20,00.000 Rupees Twenty Lacs in favour of respondent No, 1 The cheque was presented to the banker which was returned on 2nd August, 1996 with the remarks Insufficient Fund.
1 approached the High Court by filing the revision petition which was allowed by the impugned order and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate 16th, Calcutta passed b case No.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The appellant issued a cheque for Rs.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3,10.1997 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
