38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, December 15, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

SC has sought AGs Response on Viability of Serving Demand Notice Under S. 138 of NI Act Via WhatsApp/Email

By Parth Thummar      09 June, 2020 09:36 PM      0 Comments
SupremeCourt Demand Notice S138NIAct

The Supreme Court has on June 08, 2020, sought the response of the Attorney General KK Venugopal in an application seeking service of demand notice in "dishonor of cheque" cases through Email and WhatsApp under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 

The Supreme Court wanted to know the viability of alternative means of service and ways to ensure that the said service through these alternative modes is not misused. 

The issue had come up through the interlocutory application filed in the suo moto case taken by the SC extending the limitation period for filing of cases in the wake of COVID-19.

CJI S. A. Bobde had noted that, 

We have been told by some experts that people try to misuse service through email and WhatsApp. So, AG may reply as to how can this be done without abusing such liberties. Let him tell us what his advice is, so it can be considered. We are not experts on this.

When Advocate Bintu Thomas submitted that the extension of limitation must also be made applicable to re-filings, CJI had clarified that, 

Whether filings or re-filing, the same principles will apply. If the time expires during the period of lockdown, the same principle will apply. Whenever we pass that order, well say so. 

Earlier, on March 23, 2020, a Bench headed by CJI had passed a general order extending Limitation with effect from March 15, 2020, invoking special powers under Supreme Court Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 

The March 23 order had been passed to reduce physical filings in courts and tribunals across the countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The Supreme Court had ordered,

To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March  2020  tillfurther order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings. 

The bench had further stated that the order will be binding on all courts/tribunals as per Article 141. Article 141 makes Law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding on all the Courts.

 



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

ranveer-singhs-dhurandhar-barred-from-release-across-gulf-states-amid-content-sensitivity-concerns
Trending CelebStreet
Ranveer Singh’s Dhurandhar Barred from Release Across Gulf States Amid Content Sensitivity Concerns

Ranveer Singh’s Dhurandhar fails to secure release approval in six GCC countries amid concerns over politically sensitive content.

14 December, 2025 12:40 AM

TOP STORIES

scwla-hails-supreme-courts-historic-30-reservation-for-women-in-state-bar-councils-a-landmark-leap-for-gender-parity-in-the-legal-profession
Trending Legal Insiders
SCWLA Hails Supreme Court’s Historic 30% Reservation for Women in State Bar Councils: A Landmark Leap for Gender Parity in the Legal Profession [Read Press Release]

Supreme Court orders 30% reservation for women in State Bar Councils; SCWLA welcomes the landmark verdict as a major step toward gender equality in the legal profession.

09 December, 2025 04:45 PM
only-central-state-employees-fall-under-section-2e-gratuity-exclusion-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Only Central, State Employees Fall Under Section 2(e) Gratuity Exclusion: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court rules KSBC retired abkari workers are entitled to gratuity, holding that Section 2(e) exclusion applies only to government employees.

09 December, 2025 08:28 PM
civic-bodies-have-authority-to-revise-property-tax-rates-courts-cannot-substitute-judgment-on-policy-decisions-sc
Trending Judiciary
Civic Bodies Have Authority to Revise Property Tax Rates; Courts Cannot Substitute Judgment on Policy Decisions: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court upholds municipal autonomy to revise property tax rates, ruling that courts cannot interfere in policy decisions absent arbitrariness or illegality.

09 December, 2025 08:35 PM
hostile-witness-testimony-cannot-be-rejected-in-toto-supreme-court-reiterates-settled-legal-position
Trending Judiciary
Hostile Witness Testimony Cannot Be Rejected in Toto: Supreme Court Reiterates Settled Legal Position [Read Judgment]

Hostile witness testimony cannot be rejected entirely, the Supreme Court held, reaffirming that credible portions supporting prosecution or defence must still be considered.

09 December, 2025 08:44 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email