Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (10) TMI 1069 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Validity of complaint filing through Power of Attorney.
2. Requirement of original Power of Attorney at the time of filing the complaint.
3. Necessity of specific averments regarding the Attorney Holder's knowledge in the complaint.
4. Recording of the Attorney Holder's statement on oath under Section 200 of Cr. P. C.
5. Sufficiency of material on record for issuing process against the petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Complaint Filing Through Power of Attorney:
The petitioner challenged the complaint filed under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) on the grounds that it was not filed by a competent person. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in A. C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra, which held that filing a complaint through a Power of Attorney is legal and competent. The court further cited Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dolly George, emphasizing that a company can file a complaint through a human agency, and the authority of the person presenting the complaint can be contested during the trial.

2. Requirement of Original Power of Attorney at the Time of Filing the Complaint:
The petitioner argued that the original Power of Attorney was not placed on record, only a Xerox copy was produced, which is not legally sufficient. The court, however, rejected this argument, referencing the Supreme Court's observation in M/S TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. vs. M/S SMS Asia Private Limited, which stated that the production of the original Power of Attorney at the time of filing the complaint is not mandatory. The court concluded that the presence of a copy of the Power of Attorney and an averment of the Attorney Holder's authority in the complaint are sufficient for the Magistrate to take cognizance.

3. Necessity of Specific Averments Regarding the Attorney Holder's Knowledge in the Complaint:
The petitioner contended that the complaint did not contain specific averments about the Attorney Holder's knowledge of the transaction, which is a mandatory requirement. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in A. C. Narayanan, which requires specific assertions about the Attorney Holder's knowledge in the complaint. The court found that the complaint in the present case did include such assertions, thereby satisfying this requirement.

4. Recording of the Attorney Holder's Statement on Oath Under Section 200 of Cr. P. C.:
The petitioner argued that the Attorney Holder's statement was not recorded on oath as required under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. The court acknowledged this lapse but deemed it an irregularity that does not vitiate the proceedings, citing its own precedent in Rahul Kanwal vs Brig P.K.Tikoo. The court also noted that even without the Attorney Holder's statement, there was sufficient material on record to justify the issuance of process against the petitioner.

5. Sufficiency of Material on Record for Issuing Process Against the Petitioner:
The court examined the material on record, including the cheque, memo of dishonour, demand notice, and receipt of notice issuance. It concluded that these documents, along with the averments in the complaint, provided sufficient grounds for issuing process against the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the validity of the complaint filed through a Power of Attorney, the sufficiency of a copy of the Power of Attorney, the necessity of specific averments regarding the Attorney Holder's knowledge, and the sufficiency of material on record for issuing process against the petitioner. The court also deemed the non-recording of the Attorney Holder's statement on oath as an irregularity that does not vitiate the proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates