Returned Notice as “Left Address” Valid Under NI Act | HC

Case Details: Sou. Usha @ Rashmi Ramesh Bhadre vs. Raviraj Yuvraj Chavan - [2025] 177 taxmann.com 439 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• S.M. Modak, J.
• Anand Patil, Adv. for the Petitioner
•  Zishan Quazi, Adv. &  H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the complainant filed a complaint alleging that the accused had issued a cheque for payment of goods which was dishonoured on presentation. Complainant sent notice to the accused at the address found on the Aadhaar card of the accused. However, the notice was returned with the remark ‘left address’.

Accused contended that he had already left that address and, therefore, service was not effected and provisions of section 138(b) were not complied with. The Additional Sessions Judge accepted this plea, set aside the process and dismissed the complaint.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the phrase “receipt of notice” is used only for computation of limitation, and it cannot be stretched to mean that the complainant must prove that notice was actually served.

Since the complainant had taken the address from the Aadhaar card and that address was correct, sending notice to that address was sufficient compliance. Merely because the envelope was returned with remark “left address” could not benefit the accused.

Thus, the High Court held that the impugned order dismissing the complaint was liable to be set aside and the complaint was to be restored.S.M. Modak, J.

List of Cases Referred to

• C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed [2007] 77 SCL 117 (SC) (para 2)
•  Indo Automobiles v. Jai Durga Enterprises AIR 2009 SC 386 (para 6)
• Mangesh Satish Vairat v. Smt. Sangita Tanaji Nanavare [First Appeal No. 234 of 2020, dated 6-7-2023] (para 7)
•  D. Vinod Shivappa v. Nanda Belliappa (2006) 6 SCC 456 (para 10)
•  K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 (para 10)