What Is A Legal Notice?
A legal notice is a formal written communication between the parties where the
sender notifies the recipient about his intention of undertaking legal
proceedings against the latter. It helps in making the recipient party aware of
the grievances of the sender. It is considered to be a warning to the receiver
to fulfil a certain condition if he does not want to take the matter to the
court. It is a very time and cost-effective tool for settling the matters
without any litigation procedure but rather through negotiation, mediation or
The usage of a legal notice can be seen in a variety of situations:
Consumer Forums:Cases relating to buying and selling of goods and
services which turns out to be a faulty product or service may lead to
sending of a legal notice by the consumer to the seller to rectify the
Property Matters: disputes that relate to property such as partition,
succession, eviction or issues relating to the possession of property may
lead to sending a legal notice in case there is any breach or discrepancy
between the parties concerned.
Default In Repayment Of Loans: the debt recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) begins by sending a legal notice to
the defaulter for recovery of payment.
Check Bouncing Cases: In case of dishonor of check the aggrieved party
can send a legal notice for recover of payment as under the Negotiable
Recovery Of Money: in case of recovering money from a person a legal
notice can be an effective tool used.
Employer And Employee Matters: any employee deprived of his or her
salary can send a legal notice to the employer for the same.
What Are The Essentials Of A Legal Notice?
A legal notice is usually filed in civil matters. There is no filing of the
legal notice in criminal cases as in case of a criminal offences the action is
instituted by the State against the person committing the offence. However, if
one intends to initiate a civil suit against the Government a legal notice must
be served to the Government beforehand and only thereafter a civil suit can be
filed against the Government.
Legal provisions related to legal notice.
Section 80 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lays down the provision for
sending of a legal notice to the Government or public officer if one wants to
initiate an action legally against any act claimed to be done by a public
officer during the course of his employment of any official duty until two
months has expired. The purpose of the notice is to give the public officer a
chance to offer some kind of compensation after reevaluating his legal position
and resolve the issue without going to a court of law.
In Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar
, Supreme Court has stated that:
object of the section is the advancement of justice and the securing of public
good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation'�.
Under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if there is dishonor
of cheque in any manner, then there is a provision of sending a legal notice to
the person giving such cheque by the person who dishonors the cheque. It becomes
compulsory to send a legal notice to the issuer in check within a period of
thirty days from the date of the refusal. In case no money is refunded after 15
days of delivery of the legal notice, the issuer can initiate legal action
within 30 days from the date of completion of the 15-day period. Criminal
liability is also determined under this section.
Under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), in case of debt recovery from
loan defaulters, legal proceedings are initiated once a legal notice is sent to
Essentials of legal notice or Format of a Legal Notice:
- Name, description, and place of residence of the sender of the notice
- Statement of cause of action.
- The relief claimed by the sender of the notice.
- Summary of the legal basis for the relief claimed.
What Are The Requirements Of A Legal Notice?
During several occasions a person or an entity is required to send a legal
notice. There may be various reasons for issuing a legal notice. Few common
situations among them are Property Disputes, Consumer Complaints, Cheque
Bouncing cases, Divorce, Termination of Employment on Wrongful Grounds,
The actual purpose of a legal notice is to inform the other
person that the party sending the notice may take a legal action if the
mentioned debt, liability or obligation is not fulfilled within the prescribed
time limit. It may also act as a last chance being given to the accused before
beginning with court proceedings.
Legal notice allows the aggrieved party to describe their grievance in an
acceptable format through the court with the help of an experienced advocate so
that the implications are clearly being understood if the receiver fails to
comply with the terms and conditions as previously discussed. Serving a legal
notice gives a chance to the other party and helps to resolve the issue without
going for litigation which may prove expensive as well as time consuming for
both the parties.
A legal notice is required for informing the defendant and making him aware of
what he is being accused of, provided he (the defendant) is given a reasonable
time to answer on the mentioned accusations and inform the court whether he
agrees or disagrees with the facts contained therein.
Elements of a legal notice:
A legal notice is filed under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and is
only filed in civil cases.
A legal notice is an intimation and thus carries the
- Precise statement and facts relating to the grievance for which the
action is to be taken.
- Alternatives/relief sought by the grieving party.
- A summary of facts and the ways of how the grievance could be solved.
- A complete brief of the problems that the aggrieved party is facing,
combined with what can be done to resolve the issue need to be clearly
- A detailed account of how the relief can be obtained/problem solved if
mutually agreed upon the grievance.
It is important that the legal notice is crafted well. Taking help of an
attorney to draft notice would act as a mediator between the two parties and
help to solve the issues out of the court. Proper legal language and words must
be used and measures of caution must be taken if the other party denies in the
court of law in admitting any fact.
Therefore, a legal notice is importance for
future reference and for this an expert lawyer could not keep such intricate
details and prepare a well-drafted notice.
Case Note Referring To Cheque Bouncing Cases:
S. Natarajan v. Sama Dharman
The appellant on 6th of May, 2006 gave a sum of Rs. 49000/- to the respondent.
On 4th of July, 2006, the appellant gave a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and on the same
day he provided another sum of rupees 1,00,000. Further, in the case the
Appellant on 11th of January, 2007 the accused has received 50000 and
subsequently he received rupees 1,000. Thus, according to the
Appellant/complainant a total sum of rupees 3,00,000 has been received by the
respondent i.e., the accused.
The Appellant stated that to discharge the said debt, the accused gave a cheque
dated 1st February 2011. The appellant presented the said cheque for payment
through his bank on 2nd of February 2011 but the same cheque was dishonored on
the ground that the accused did not have sufficient funds in their account. the
appellant issued on Notice dated 2nd of March 2011 to the accused calling upon
him to pay the cheque of amount Rs. 3,00,000 within 15 days.
The accused contended that the blank cheque was being stolen by the appellant as
he was working with the accused and his son as partners in a business. the
business of the accused was closed in the year 2008 due to it being running into
loss and upon the closure of the business there was no business relation between
the two of them and by misusing the stolen cheque, a false claim was being made
by the appellant.
Since the accused failed to comply with the demand made in the notice, the
appellant filed a complaint u/s 138 of N.I Act 1881. The accused moved the
application in the Madras High Court u/s 482 of CRPC quashing the said
complaint. He pleaded that no amount was borrowed from the appellant and that
the dishonored cheque has not been issued legally. The High court quashed the
proceeding on the complaint being time barred.
On appeal the High Court referred to section 25 (3) of the Indian Contract act
1872, since there was no distinct promise to pay the debt either wholly or
partially. Unless a specific direction in the form of novation is created with
regard to payment of the debt section 25 (3) cannot be invoked. The High Court
also observed that for the purpose of invoking section 138 read with section 142
of the N I Act The cheque must be issued in respect of legally enforceable debt
or other liability. Therefore, on the alleged debt becoming time barred the
proceeding deserved to be quashed.
Therefore, it is clear that the contention urged by the appellant can be
examined only during trial if it involves examination of facts.
According to Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is clear that in
order to attract the penal provisions in the bouncing of a cheque under Chapter
XVII, it is essential that the dishonored cheque has to be issued in discharge
of wholly on the part of any debt or other liability of the drawer to the payee.
The explanation to Sec.138 defines the expression 'debt as liability' as a
legally enforceable debt in other liability. But a time barred debt cannot be a
legally enforceable debt.
It cannot be said that a time barred debt and it is
dishonored the accused cannot be convicted under Sec.138 of the Act. In the
instant case, the cheque was issued in view of the fact that the debtor has
acknowledged his liability. Under the said circumstances, he should not be
entitled to claim that the debt has become barred by limitation.
Case Note On Purchase Of Immovable Property
In the case of Jayakantham and Others versus Abaykumar, the trial court
granted the decree of specific performance in favour of the Respondent
purchaser, which was upheld by the Principal District Judge in appeal and the
High Court of Madras in second appeal. However, the Supreme Court took a
contrary view and reversed the decree of specific performance.
While noting the facts of the case, On June 2, 1999, an agreement to sell was
entered into between the Appellants and the father of the Respondent. The agreed
consideration between the parties was Rs. 1,60,000, out of which an amount of Rs.
60,000 was while executing the agreement to sell. The sale transaction was to be
completed within three years from the day of execution of agreement as against
the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000.
A legal notice was sent on 7th May, 2002
by the respondent seeking performance of the agreement. In response to the legal
notice, the Appellants was, inter alia, of the opinion that the agreement to
sell was executed only as a security for a loan transaction as the father of the
respondent was a money lender (which was already admitted). The trial court
noted that the agreement to sell had been registered and rejected the defence's
statement of it being merely a document executed by way of security for a loan
transaction. Also, there was nothing in the agreement that indicated the
agreement was executed merely for the purpose of security of loan. A finding of
fact was arrived at to the effect that the respondent was ready and willing to
perform the agreement.
The Supreme Court observed that there were no errors in finding all the facts by
all the three courts and hence on merits the judgment cannot be reversed.
However, the Appellants pleaded with an alternative submission that the suit
property is the only property held by the Appellants and that it had extremely
high value. Further, the Appellants stated that they are ready to pay a sum of
Rupees Ten Lakhs or even more to retain the suit property. The Appellants
produced material indicating that the value of the property was Rs. 6,30,000
(Six Lakhs and Thirty Thousand) during the course of evidence before the trial
court, on November 20, 2006. The Appellants also placed document indicating the
value of the property when he entered into the agreement i.e., of April1, 1999.
These aspects were though noted by the trial court and the first appellate court
but were not borne in mind while granting the relief of specific performance in
favour of the Respondent. The Supreme Court observed that the terms of the
contract, the conduct of parties at the time of entering into the agreement and
the circumstances gave the Respondent an unfair advantage over the Appellants
thereby making it inequitable to enforce the relief of specific performance.
It would be necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principles of law while
evaluating whether specific performance ought to have been decreed in a case or
not. The court is not supposed to grant the relief of specific performance just
because it is lawful to do so.
Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that the jurisdiction to
decree specific performance is totally upon the courts but such a discretion of
the court should not be arbitrary but 'sound and reasonable'� and to be 'guided
by judicial principles
'�. Section 20(2) contains a stipulation of those cases
where the court may exercise its discretion not to grant specific performance.
The following are cases in which the court may properly exercise discretion not
to decree specific performance: 
- where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at the
time of entering into the contract or the other circumstances under which
the contract was entered into are such that the contract, though not
voidable, gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant; or
- where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the
defendant which he did not foresee, whereas its non-performance would
involve no such hardship on the plaintiff;
- where the defendant entered into the contract under circumstances which
though not rendering the contract voidable, makes it inequitable to enforce
Since the Appellants offered to pay an amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs as
compensation in lieu of specific performance, the Supreme Court held that
payment of compensation of Rupees Fifteen Lakhs to the respondent would meet the
ends of justice.
The judgement of the Supreme Court strengthened the settled law that it is not
always necessary or a requirement to grant relief of specific performance simply
because the law provides for such a relief to the aggrieved rather the order has
to be based on the facts and circumstances of the case only after interpreting
the equitable interest of the parties. Therefore, the supreme court was
justified in setting aside the specific performance with a direction to pay a
sum of rupees fifteen lakhs to the respondents in lieu of specific performance.
- AIR 1984 SC 1043
- Shreya Mintri, 'Essential Elements of a Legal Notice'�
(2019), available at: https://email@example.com/essential-elements-of-a-legal-notice-e0cbe3dd27cf#:~:text=A%20legal%20notice%20is%20filed,action%20is%20to%20be%20taken., (last
visited April 2, 2021)
- 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 4911 (S.C.) =2014 (9) SCALE 3
- Joseph v/s Devassia 2001 MLJ Crl 115
- 2017(1) TLNJ 492 (Civil)
- The Specific Relief Act, 1963, s. 20(2)
Please Drop Your Comments