SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Sagayadurai – Appellant
Versus
J. D. Electronics – Respondent


COMMON ORDER

M. Karpagavinayagam, J. - The only question that arises for consideration in all these revisions is whether the Manager of partnership firm could file a complaint in the absence of the Power of Attorney or any authorisation?

2. The trial court while considering this point has held that the Manager is competent to file the complaint.

3. Ms. T.R. Ramadevi counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Manager can represent a company but in the instant case since the Manager represents the partnership firm he cannot be permitted to appear on behalf of the partnership firm in the absence of the authorisation.

4. I am afraid this argument cannot hold good in view of the following Explanation (a) to Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which defines the company for the purpose of this Act and the said explanation runs as under:

"Explanation - For the purpose of this Section (a) "Company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals.

From this provision, it is clear that the court is empowered to take cognizance if the complaint is preferred by the firm, a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through the Mana





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top