2002 (11) TMI 664 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Authority to sign complaints on behalf of a proprietary concern.
3. Application of res judicata in criminal cases.
4. Imposition of costs in criminal proceedings.

Issue 1: Validity of complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner issued 13 cheques to the 1st respondent, which were dishonored, leading to complaints under section 138 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the complaints should be signed by the proprietor of the complainant firm and not by the Manager, Vilas Mangulkar. The petitioner argued that since Mangulkar was not the payee or holder in due course of the cheques, the complaints should be quashed. However, the court held that the complaints were valid as they were filed by the payee of the cheques and signed on behalf of the concern by the Manager. The court emphasized that the authorization of the signatory could be determined during trial, not at this stage.

Issue 2: Authority to sign complaints on behalf of a proprietary concern:
The petitioner challenged the complaints' validity on the grounds that they were not signed by the proprietor of the complainant firm. The court referenced a Division Bench decision and clarified that complaints filed by the payee of the cheques and signed by the Manager of the concern were acceptable. The court emphasized that the Manager's authorization to sign the complaints could be addressed during trial, not in the current proceedings.

Issue 3: Application of res judicata in criminal cases:
The court highlighted that the petitioner had previously challenged the order refusing to discharge him from the cases, raising similar contentions regarding the complaints' validity. The court noted that principles of res judicata applied to criminal cases, preventing the petitioner from rehashing the same issues repeatedly. The court deemed the current petitions an attempt to review the earlier order, which is impermissible in criminal proceedings.

Issue 4: Imposition of costs in criminal proceedings:
The court acknowledged that costs are not typically imposed in criminal cases, given the state's usual role in prosecution. However, in cases where a party abuses the court process to hinder proceedings, costs can be awarded. The court found the petitioner's actions deliberate in stalling the trial proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the petitions with costs imposed on the petitioner.

The judgment dismissed the petitions challenging the complaints' validity under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, citing that the complaints were properly filed by the payee and signed by the Manager of the concern. The court applied the principle of res judicata, preventing the petitioner from re-raising previously addressed issues. Additionally, costs were imposed on the petitioner for abusing the court process to delay the trial proceedings.