Justice Arindam Lodh observed that the notice, though printed in a letter pad of an Advocate (who did not sign it), contain the endorsement of complainant as he put his signature on every pages of the notice being the holder of the cheques. The judge observed:
The language of proviso-B of Section 138 is very plain and simple and it does not speak about that the notice is to be sent through advocate. It is the payee or the holder who will make the demand in writing.
Two judgments which were relied on to contend that this notice does not confirm the requirements of Section 138 NI Act., are Suman Seth vs. Ajay K. Churiwal and Rahul Builders vs Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals. The judge observed that neither of these judgments have held that the notice have to be served through only the Advocate. The said authorities only laid the principles that the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act have to be followed and the contents about the amount of the cheque and demand of cost, interest and other expenses must be in specific terms to subserve the requirements of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the court said. Answering the other issues also in favour of the complainant, the bench held that he has successfully made out a case of dishonour of cheques.