Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
49K views6 pages

Reply Notice

This letter is in response to a legal notice dated 8th December 2018 issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding a cheque. It summarizes: 1) The client denies all allegations made in the notice. 2) The cheque referred to was given as a security deposit, not for presentation, and the notice has been issued to pressure the client despite genuine disputes over accounts. 3) The transactions occurred in Ahmedabad, so the notice creating jurisdiction in Delhi is invalid. 4) There is no legally enforceable debt - the client was dumped with excess goods never ordered and incentives owed by the company were not paid. 5) The supplied products were defective and the

Uploaded by

abc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
49K views6 pages

Reply Notice

This letter is in response to a legal notice dated 8th December 2018 issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding a cheque. It summarizes: 1) The client denies all allegations made in the notice. 2) The cheque referred to was given as a security deposit, not for presentation, and the notice has been issued to pressure the client despite genuine disputes over accounts. 3) The transactions occurred in Ahmedabad, so the notice creating jurisdiction in Delhi is invalid. 4) There is no legally enforceable debt - the client was dumped with excess goods never ordered and incentives owed by the company were not paid. 5) The supplied products were defective and the

Uploaded by

abc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Dt: 31/12/2018

To

1. M/S SHREE BALAJEE HOME PRODUCTS PVT LTD

Through Sunil Jain

Authorised Person

Having Address as:

12/8 Saraswati Marg,

V-2 Mall 2nd Floor

202-203 Karol Bagh

New Delhi-110008

2. T.K Dadhich
B-6/2 2nd Floor,
Rajouri Garden
New Delhi-1100027

Subject: Reply to Notice dated


8.12.2018 issued under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881.
Under the instructions and authority of my

client Mr. Girishbhai Shah Proprietor of Gautam

Agency , I address this reply to you legal notice

as follows:

1. At the outset my client denies all the

averments made in the notice in its

entirety and unless and until specifically

admitted by my client, all the averments of

the notice to be treated as denied in its

totality.

2. The cheque referred in the notice was not

issued for the purpose of presentation to the

bank. The said cheque was given to you i.e.

recipient no.1 as security deposit which has

been misused by you. You were aware that

there were genuine dispute relating to

account with my client and despite the


aforesaid only with a view to pressurise my

client such notice has been issued.

3. At the outset it is pointed out that the

recipient no.1 had deliberately issued notice

from Delhi only with a view to create

jurisdiction. The transactions if at all had

taken place at Ahmedabad the jurisdiction

for the purpose of 138 of NI Act cannot be

misused in such a manner by issuing such

notices. That my client has an account at

Ahmedabad where allegedly the said cheque

had come for the purpose of encashment

therefore there is no question of creating

jurisdiction in Delhi by merely issuing such

notice.

4. At the outset it is stated that there are no

legally enforceable debt in your favour and


cheque which had been deposited has been

misused for the reason that my client was

your distributor who was dumped with

excess goods which were never purchased or

ordered by my client. This apart the

company was responsible for the sale of the

goods and against such sale, concerned

retailers were to receive incentives as per

promotion and promises made by the

company i.e. recipient No.1. That these

incentives were to be given through my

client and therefore infact you are liable to

pay such incentives to my client which you

have agreed.

5. That the product which has been supplied by

you Recipient No.1 is defective and therefore

several complaints were raised with you.

Infact the correspondence by my client with


Recipient No. 1 would reveal that my client

has informed for return of goods/products

which were supplied in excess amounting

close to Rupees 12,00,000/- (Twelve lacs)

against appropriate reimbursement which

you have not done till date. Thus my client

has been cheated and there is clear offence

of cheating committed by you for which my

client reserves right to file appropriate

complaint/FIR before appropriate forum.

That above facts would reveal from email

exchanged between Recipient No. 1 and my

clients which is on record.

6. In view of above said position it is crystal

clear there is no liability of my client as

indicated in the aforesaid notice. My client is

not liable for any prosecution as alleged and

therefore you are requested to forthwith


withdraw the notice in question immediately.

Since the reply is necessitated on account of

your action you are liable to pay the cost of

present reply which is quantified at Rupees

25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand).

Virat Popat

Advocate

Under the instruction of

______________

You might also like