In Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul (Supreme Court, Sept 19, 2025), the accused company issued a cheque for ₹1 crore, which bounced due to insufficient funds. The complainant served a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, demanding ₹2 crore instead of the actual cheque amount, claiming it was a typographical error. The High Court quashed the complaint, holding the notice invalid due to the amount mismatch. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that Section 138 is a penal provision requiring strict compliance. The Court held that the notice must demand the “said amount of money” as specified in the dishonoured cheque; no relaxation is permissible, even for typographical errors. Any ambiguous or excessive amount not matching the cheque renders the notice invalid. While additional claims like interest or costs may be separately specified, the principal cheque amount must be exact. Consequently, the defense of typographical error was rejected, and the complaint under Section 138 NI Act was held non-maintainable.