MIstake in the 138 NIA Notice
Srinivas.B.S.S.T
(Querist) 05 April 2009
This query is : Resolved
While issuing notice under section 138 of NI Act by mistake the complainant firm was mentioned as "a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor" instead of "Partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner".
Now complaint has to be filed. Will the error crept in the notice will weaken the case of the complainant?.
Jithendra.H.J
(Expert) 05 April 2009
never,
it is just an technical error, proceed with your case.
Venkata Ravi Kumar
(Expert) 05 April 2009
No problem for the complainant
but as a precautionary mesaure you can send errata notice, which doesn't mean that you are issuing a new notice
K.C.Suresh
(Expert) 06 April 2009
It is not a meterial issue which relevant in the case. This can be corrected.
n.k.sarin
(Expert) 06 April 2009
In my opinion Mr. srinivas you must send a
correction notice.Its a criminal proceeding, any error on your part give the benefit to the opposite party. In a criminal proceeding there's nothing like technical error.you must send correcion notice.
Ashey
(Expert) 06 April 2009
I agree with Mr. serin and send a rejoinder notice ..
Ashey
(Expert) 06 April 2009
I agree with Mr. serin - send a rejoinder notice ..
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 06 April 2009
Before filing a complaint issue another notice stating.. In continuation of legal notice dt... herewith it is hereby informed you that due to mistake instead of partnership firm, rep., by Managing Partner it has been shown that proprietory concern. So u are hereby instructed to treat the legal notice dt...issued to you may kindly be treated as notice issued on behalf of Partnership firm. and while filing the complainant enclose the copy of this notice.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 06 April 2009
rajeev has given a good option.
n.k.sarin
(Expert) 06 April 2009
I agree with Mr Rajeev.
Srinivas.B.S.S.T
(Querist) 07 April 2009
Respected Sirs, Thank you all for your valuable suggestions. While searching for rectification of the above mentioned problem I found the following citation of AP HC wherein it was held that " the object of issuance of notice is to give an opportunity to the drawer to make payment within 15 days,therefore, just because it was not mentioned in the notices that they were issued on behalf of the firm, the prosecution cannot be thrown out of the ground, justice cannot be lost in technicalities"
2004 (2) ALT (Crl.)134 A.P.
regards
Srinivas BSST
Jithendra.H.J
(Expert) 09 April 2009
thank you Mr.Srinivas for quoating the judgment,
i was standing alone by stating that 'it is just a technical error'
rupareliya
(Expert) 09 May 2009
i do agree with all my friends but i just want to say that please dont depend on ap high court judment because it is settel law that procicution has to proove its owen cas and there is no any ground for mistake if u mistek accuse can get benifite of it
