ORDER Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. - Leave granted. 2. On the request of Mr. Pallav Sisodia, learned senior counsel, permission is granted to delete appellant No. 2 and respondent No. 2 from the array of parties. 3. By the impugned order of the Bombay High Court dated 17th November, 2015 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 734/2015, a challenge to the order of the Sessions Court, setting aside the issuance of process in a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the NI Act"), has failed. The Sessions Court dismissed the complaint in a revision under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1897. 4. The view which has been taken by the learned Single Judge is that the notice which was issued by the appellant did not mention the details in regard to the number of cheques and the amount which the appellant was entitled to receive, hence, it was defective. 5. The appellant issued a notice on 31st January, 2012 to respondent No. 1. The notice specifically refers to eight cheques. A tabulated statement contained in the notice indicated the cheque number, date, bank and the amount. The notice was responded to on 9th March, 2012 by the advocate for respondent No. 1. The response evinces that the gravamen of the notice was understood and in consequence, respondent No. 1 has communicated his defence to the notice. 6. Proviso (b) to section 138 of the NI Act requires that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque must make a demand for payment by giving a notice in writing. Proviso (b) is extracted below:- "(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid." 7. The above provision makes it clear that the demand has to be made by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque. The demand is required to be for the payment of an amount of money. The above provision makes it clear that the demand has to be made by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque. The demand is required to be for the payment of an amount of money. Moreover, the demand has to be issued in writing to the drawer of the cheque within the stipulated period from the intimation from the bank regarding the return of the cheque unpaid. 8. In the present case, it is common ground that, out of the eight cheques which were referred to in the tabulated chart contained in the notice dated 31st January, 2012, only three cheques were issued in favour of the appellant-complainant. 9. The appellant is hence the payee or, as the case may be, a holder in due course only in respect of the said three cheques. 10. Both before the High Court and in the course of these proceedings, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that the notice is being relied on only in regard to the three cheques in respect of which the appellant is the payee. The complaint is accordingly, to be confined only to the three cheques of which the appellant is the payee. 11. We are unable to accept the reasoning which weighed with the High Court in coming to the conclusion that the notice did not meet the requirements of proviso (b) to Section 138 in respect of the three cheques to which the complaint is confined. The tabulated chart indicates all relevant details in regard to the said cheques. 12. We accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 17.11.2015. However, we clarify that the complaint which has been instituted by the appellant and the process which has been issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court Bandra in CC No. 896/SS/2012 shall be confined only to the three cheques of which the appellant is the payee. 13. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.