AMAR NATH DOGRA vs UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme Court held that a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sufficient for a subsequent suit if it satisfies legal requirements, even if the first suit was withdrawn. The Court emphasized that the notice should be interpreted in a common-sense manner to convey substantial information regarding the claim. However, it found that the plaint was inconsistent with the notice and claimed reliefs based on a cause of action arising after the notice, leading to a conclusion that there was no compliance with Section 80. Additionally, the claim for refund of the advance deposit was barred by Section 40 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, resulting in the dismissal of the suit.