9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 423 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - power of Deputy In-charge, Principal Officer or Senior Clerk of the Company to file a complaint case against the petitioners - Adequate court fees not paid - HELD THAT - The Court Fees Act and consequently all the Orissa State Amendment are only to providing for taxing purposes. If insufficient court fees are paid in a proceeding, be it a civil or criminal, the proceeding should not be dismissed at the threshold, rather the Court is under a duty to give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in a complaint case or the plaintiff in a civil proceeding to pay the deficit court fees. In no case, a proceeding should be dismissed for payment of inadequate court fees without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, complainant or the plaintiff to make good deficit court fees. This Court is of the opinion that even at the final hearing of the proceeding, if it is found that insufficient court fees has been paid, the judgment can be pronounced directing the petitioner or complainant to pay the deficit court fees, lest the final order shall not take effect. This Court is of the opinion that there is no reason to dismiss the complaint or to allow the revision setting aside the order taking cognizance and issuance of processes by the learned Magistrate. This Court is of the opinion that in the present cases the company has been duly authorized an authorized person. If the accused arrayed in this cases wants to disputes those facts and statements, the said issues may be raised at the time of trial of the cases and opportunities should be given to the complainant to show before the learned Magistrate that in fact, the company made a Resolution to authorize Mr. Ratnakar Nayak to file the complaint on behalf of the company and if necessary examine the Managing Director or any of the Directors of the company. On a careful conspectus of the entire material on record as well as the law governing the field, this Court is of the opinion that the cognizance taken by the learned SDJM, Panposh cannot be quashed or set aside because of non-compliance of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1961 or for deficit court fees or for lack of jurisdiction. However, all these complaints filed before the SDJM, Panposh are allowed to be withdrawn to the complainant to be filed before the learned JMFC, Barbil within the period of limitation as prescribed from the date of such withdrawal. Criminal Revisions are disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the complainant to file the case. 2. Payment of proper court fees. 3. Jurisdiction of the court to try the case. 4. Authorization to file the complaint on behalf of the company. 5. Spelling discrepancy in the name of the company. Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of the Complainant to File the Case: The petitioners argued that the complaint was not filed by an authorized person as required under Section 142 of the N.I. Act. They contended that the Deputy In-charge or Senior Clerk lacked statutory power under Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1961, to file the complaint. However, the opposite party countered that the Deputy In-charge was authorized by a resolution passed by the Board of Directors. The court referred to several precedents, including Vishwa Mitter v. O.P. Poddar and National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), which clarified that a complaint can be filed on behalf of a company by any authorized person, including an employee or a non-employee authorized by a resolution or power of attorney. The court concluded that the complaint was validly filed by an authorized person. 2. Payment of Proper Court Fees: The petitioners argued that the complaints should be dismissed due to non-payment of proper court fees as per the Odisha Amendment to the Court Fees Act. The court held that the Court Fees Act is a taxing statute and insufficient court fees should not defeat a cause of action. The court cited the Privy Council's decision in Rachappa Subrao Jadhav v. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhav, which emphasized that the Court Fees Act aims to secure revenue for the state and not to arm litigants with technicalities. The court concluded that the complaints should not be dismissed for insufficient court fees without giving the complainant a reasonable opportunity to pay the deficit. 3. Jurisdiction of the Court to Try the Case: The petitioners contended that the SDJM, Panposh, lacked jurisdiction as the cheques were dishonored by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Barbil Branch. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the place where the cheque is dishonored determines the jurisdiction. The court noted that the complaints were filed before the Supreme Court's decision, which applies prospectively. Therefore, the court directed that the complaints be refiled before the JMFC, Barbil, who has jurisdiction. 4. Authorization to File the Complaint on Behalf of the Company: The court examined the authorization issue and found that the complaints were filed by an employee authorized by a Board of Directors' resolution. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand and Samrat Shipping Co. (P) Ltd. v. Dolly George, which clarified that a company can rectify any initial lack of authorization at any stage. The court concluded that the complaints were validly filed and any dispute regarding authorization could be addressed during the trial. 5. Spelling Discrepancy in the Name of the Company: The petitioners pointed out a spelling difference in the name of the company. The court dismissed this argument, considering it a minor clerical error with no substantial impact on the case. Conclusion: The court upheld the validity of the complaints filed by an authorized person on behalf of the company. It rejected the arguments regarding insufficient court fees and jurisdiction, directing the complaints to be refiled before the JMFC, Barbil. The court also dismissed the issue of spelling discrepancy as inconsequential. All criminal revisions were disposed of with directions for the complainant to refile the complaints within the prescribed period.
|
