9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to file the complaint in its own name through its power of attorney holder. There is a general power of attorney of the appellant company in favour of one of its directors, Kavindersingh Anand. The said power of attorney was executed after it was duly approved by the board of directors in its meeting dated 01.05.2010. Therefore, one of the directors of the appellant-company, i.e. Kavindersingh Anand is holding power of attorney of the appellant-company and is the true and lawful attorney of the same - the said power of attorney explicitly authorises him to appoint counsel or special attorneys for conducting all cases or otherwise to do all other acts and things for due prosecution or defence of legal or quasi legal proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctors of the company who has been specifically authorised to lodge the complaint and to pursue it? - HELD THAT:- It has come on record that he has filed his personal affidavit dated 26.03.2018 stating that he is general power of attorney holder of the appellant company and that since he is also a director, he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and hence is competent to pursue the litigation on behalf of the appellant company. The High Court has very conveniently ignored the said affidavit and for the reason that as such an averment is not contained in the complaint, held that he was not authorised to depose on behalf of the appellant company. The High Court manifestly erred in recording the above opinion when the affidavit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e excess amount and issued two cheques to the appellant-company for its refund. The cheques were dishonoured on account of instructions stop payment . 4. The appellant-company through its authorised representative Ripanjit Singh Kohli filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas under Section 138 read with Section 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the said complaint, respondent moved two applications first alleging that the complaint has not been filed by an authorised person and the second alleging that Kavindersingh Anand cannot depose before the court as the complaint nowhere states that he is having knowledge about the facts and the transactions. 5. The first application was rejected by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv) Functions under general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without a specific clause permitting the same in the general power of attorney. v) The affidavits of complainant, his witnesses or his power of attorney holder are permissible and sufficient for taking cognizance on the complaint; and vi) The complaint by power of attorney holder on behalf of the original complainant is maintainable though he cannot file a complaint in his own name. 8. It is in the light of the above dictums of law laid down by this Court in the above case, it is to be examined if the complaint as filed is maintainable and the High Court is justified in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.PC to set aside the orders of the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gth of the aforesaid power of attorney, authorised Ripanjit Singh Kohli to lodge the aforesaid complaint. 13. The law is settled that though the general power of attorney holder cannot delegate his powers to another person but the same can be delegated when there is a specific clause permitting sub-delegation. A careful reading of the general power of attorney would reveal that the appellant-company in its meeting of the board of directors held on 1st May, 2010 has resolved to appoint one of its directors Kavindersingh Anand as its attorney of the company who was specifically authorised vide paragraph 2 to appoint counsels or special attorney(s). The language deployed, i.e., to appoint special attorneys is clear enough to indicate tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... general power of attorney holder and thus the filing of the complaint on behalf of the appellant company through its authorised representative Ripanjit Singh Kohli is not at all illegal or bad in law. 14. Now coming to the second aspect of the matter as to whether Kavindersingh Anand could depose on behalf of the appellant company, it has to be noted that he was one of the directors of the company who has been specifically authorised to lodge the complaint and to pursue it. It has come on record that he has filed his personal affidavit dated 26.03.2018 stating that he is general power of attorney holder of the appellant company and that since he is also a director, he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and hence is competent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
