Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Amprolisa Construction And Marketing Pvt Ltd., Rep. By Sri Promod Singha – Appellant
Versus
Gupta Hardware Private Limited, Rep. By Sri Manab Lahkar, Marketing Manager – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. M.J. Hazarika, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint as well as the proceeding vide C.R. Case No. 1106/2015 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (Metro), at Guwahati, read with Section 401 of Cr.PC.
3. One Manab Lahkar representing himself as Marketing Manager of the respondent Company M/S Gupta Hardware Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) alleging dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioner company. The case was made over to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Munsiff No. 4, Kamrup (Metro)and the following order was passed on 26.08.2015 which is as follows:-
“The complainant has filed their evidence-on-affida
Authorization for filing complaints under the N.I. Act is a curable defect; a company acts through its Board of Directors, and post-initiation ratification is permissible.
A company complaint filed without proper authorization is deemed invalid, emphasizing the requirement for competence in legal representation.
(1) Dishonour of cheque – When, complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent company.(2) Dishonour of cheque – Dismissal of a complaint at threshold by Magistrate on question ....
: Dishonour of cheque – In a case where complainant is a company, an authorized employee can represent the company – Once averment to this effect is made in complaint, it is sufficient for Magistrate....
A power of attorney holder can file a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act if they have personal knowledge of the transaction, and this must be explicitly stated in the complaint.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed by a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be in the name of the company and can be represented b....
(1) Dishonour of cheque – In cases where payee/complainant is company, all that is necessary to be demonstrated before Magistrate is that complaint is filed in name of payee.(2) Dishonour of cheque ....
A power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act in his own name; he must act on behalf of the principal and possess knowledge of the transaction.
The court affirmed that a complaint under Section 138 requires valid authorization from a company’s board, and without it, the complaint is invalid regardless of other evidence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
