9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Maintainability of complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Requirement of special authorization for legal proceedings initiated by principal officers of a juristic person. Analysis: The judgment involves two matters between the same parties concerning complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners, accused in the complaints, sought quashing of the proceedings and summons under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging lack of notice and authority for filing the complaints. Respondent No. 2, a company, filed the complaints through its administrative manager, Mr. Laxman Naraindas Malkani. The petitioners contended that notices were not served on them and questioned the authority of Mr. Malkani to file the complaints. Upon review, the court found that notices were indeed served on the accused directors of the petitioner company, dismissing the challenge on this ground. The court noted that the cheques were dishonored, indicating dishonest intent, as per precedents. The main issue addressed was whether special authorization is required for legal proceedings initiated by principal officers of a juristic person. Section 141 of the Act defines a "company" as a legal entity, allowing representation by individuals connected with the entity's affairs. The court emphasized that legal entities like companies need human agency to act on their behalf, such as managers or directors, without requiring special authorization for legal proceedings. The court cited precedents from the Madras High Court to support its interpretation. In cases where complaints were filed in the name of the legal entity, authorization was not deemed necessary. The court highlighted that the complaints in question were filed in the name of respondent No. 2, a legal entity represented by its administrative manager, making them maintainable under the law. As the complaints adhered to the Act's provisions, the court found no grounds for interference or quashing, emphasizing the paramount objective of the Act. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed further in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the requirements for legal proceedings initiated by principal officers of juristic persons, emphasizing the representation of legal entities by human agency without the need for special authorization. The court upheld the maintainability of the complaints under section 138 of the Act, dismissing the petitions and allowing the proceedings to continue in accordance with the law.
|
