Bombay High Court

Goa Court: Businessman Fails to Prove Delivery of Legal Notices in Cheque Bounce Case

Updated
Oct 2, 2025 6:03 PM
News Image

Quick Summary: In a surprising turn, Pierre Antonio Lobo accused Jose Remedios Rodrigues of not repaying loans and bouncing cheques. However, the court dismissed the charges because the notices weren't properly delivered.

The Case Begins: Lobo vs. Jose

Pierre Antonio Lobo, a businessman from Goa, accused Jose Remedios Rodrigues of not paying back loans and bouncing cheques. Lobo had allowed Jose to manage his resort, "Don Hill Beach Resort," in Candolim, Goa, under a management agreement. Jose was supposed to pay monthly compensation and issued cheques with future dates for this.

Cheques and Loans: The Financial Mess

Lobo claimed that Jose's cheques bounced because there wasn't enough money in the account. Additionally, Jose borrowed Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 8 lakhs from Lobo, giving cheques as repayment. However, these cheques also bounced when deposited.

"Jose asked for a personal loan from Lobo... promising to pay it back."

Legal Notices and Complaints

When the cheques bounced, Lobo sent legal notices demanding payment. Jose, however, did not respond. Consequently, Lobo filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonor.

Court Verdict: Jose Found Not Guilty

The Magistrate initially found Jose guilty, but this was overturned by the Additional Sessions Judge. The judge stated that Lobo couldn't prove Jose received the legal notices, a crucial part for a Section 138 offence.

Importance of Proper Notice

The court emphasized that for a cheque bounce case, the accused must receive a legal notice. In Jose's case, the notices were not proven to be delivered properly. One notice was handed to a 15-year-old girl, and another didn't have a complete address.

"The assumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act... shall not come into force."

Final Decision: Appeals Dismissed

Judge Bharati Dangre dismissed Lobo's appeals, agreeing with the lower court that the notices were not served correctly. Without proof of notice, the offence under Section 138 couldn't be established.

This case highlights the importance of following the right legal steps, especially in cheque bounce cases. Without evidence that the notice was delivered, even a bounced cheque may not result in a conviction.