Back
Delhi High court
Hon'ble A. K. Sikri, J.
Crl. MC. Nos. 3019-3022 of 2005
Decided on 10.7.2006
M/s. Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Versus
M/s. Rama Vision Limited
Mr. Vishwendra Verma with Ms. Subhani, Advocates for Petitioners
Mr. O.P. Shekhawat, Advocate for Respondent
The court emphasized the need for evidence in deciding issues of authorization, resignation, and directorial responsibility, highlighting the importance of trial proceedings in such matters.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint under Sections 138/142 - Act, 1881 - Summary: The court discussed the authorization of the complainant's representative, the resignation of the directors, and their liability for dishonored cheques. The court found that the authorization and resignation issues required evidence and could not be decided in the present proceedings. It also noted that the directors' responsibility for the company's affairs and their assurances to honor commitments were matters to be decided at trial.
Fact of the Case:
M/s. Rama Vision Ltd. filed a complaint under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonor of cheques by M/s. Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. and its directors. The company and its directors challenged the summoning orders on grounds of authorization, resignation, and lack of specific allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues of authorization, resignation, and directorial responsibility required evidence and could not be decided in the present proceedings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authorization of the complainant's representative, the resignation of the directors, and their liability for the dishonored cheques.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorization and resignation issues required evidence and could not be decided in the present proceedings. It also noted that the directors' responsibility for the company's affairs and their assurances to honor commitments were matters to be decided at trial.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) :
1. M/s. Rama Vision Ltd., respondent in the present proceedings, has filed a complaint under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, `the Act'), which is numbered as Complaint Case No. 84/2004 entitled M/s. Rama Vision Limited v. M/s. Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. It is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, the complaint is founded on the allegations that M/s. Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the company') was having business relations with the complainant and against the supply of goods, the company gave certain cheques which were dishonoured on presentation with the endorsement "insufficient funds". Legal notice under Section 138 of the Act was sent by Speed Post A.D., UPC as well as through carrier to the company as well as its directors and thereafter complaint was filed as in spite of the said notice the money was not given to the complainant. Pre-summoning evidence was recorded whereafter the learned MM summoned all the accused persons. In the said complaint, the company is arrayed as accused No.1 and four other persons, who are the directors of the accused No.1 company, are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 5.
2. In this petition filed on behalf of the company and three directors (accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the complaint), the summoning orders are challenged. Insofar the company is concerned, which is the petitioner No.1 in this petition, the challenge is on the ground that Shri R.K. Sehgal, who filed the complaint on behalf of the complainant, is not a duly authorised person because the alleged authorisation letter was issued on 31.12.2000, long before the cause of action is purported to have been arisen on 6.12.2003. On behalf of the petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 the ground made is that they resigned from the directorship of the company on 14.11.2003 and 15.11.2003 respectively, whereas the demand notice is dated 6.12.2003 and, therefore, they cannot be made liable. Furthermore, it is contended that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 in the complaint.
3. In the reply filed by the respondent, it is denied that Mr. R.K. Sehgal is not the authorised representative. It is stated that he is the Company Secretary of the respondent company and is a duly authorised person and competent to initiate legal proceedings and depose before the courts. The Board of Directors of the respondent company have duly authorised him to file the cases on behalf of the company. It is stated that it is a general authorisation and in law no specific authorisation for a particular case is required. It is also pointed out that he is a principal officer as per the provisions of the Companies Act and is, therefore, entitled to file the cases on behalf of the respondent company even on this ground. The allegations that the petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 resigned as Directors is denied and it is also submitted that in any case they did not resign from the Board of Directors during the relevant period and no documents have been supplied to the respondent in this regard. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against all the directors in the complaint.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that no legal issues are raised by the petitioners on the basis of which they could maintain the present proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners have admitted that there is an authorisation letter issued in favour of Mr. R.K. Sehgal on 31.12.2000. It is also not in dispute that he is the Company Secretary. Learned counsel for the respondent is right in his submission that there need not be any specific authorisation of the Board of Directors for filing each case and there can be general authorisation to an officer by the Board of Directors. The copy of the authorisation letter dated 31.12.2000 has not been filed on record. Ultimately,
