Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, Sr. Adv., B. Mohanty, P.K. Nayak, A. Patnaik
For Opp. Parties : Mr. M. Mishra, D. Mishra

What is the validity of filing a Section 138 NI Act complaint by a Power of Attorney holder of a company against the petitioner? (!) What is the mandatory requirement of service of notice under Section 138(b) & (c) of the NI Act, and is a returned unserved notice due to absence deemed service? (!) (!) What is this Court's jurisdiction to interfere with or quash proceedings initiated at a distant forum (Daman, Uttaranchal) when the cause of action arises in Orissa, and whether Article 226 relief is maintainable? (!) (!) (!)

Key Points: - The Principal Officer cannot re-delegate authority to file NI Act complaints through a Power of Attorney; such filing may be incompetent (!) . - Notice under NI Act Section 138(b)/(c) must be served on the addressee; an endorsement that the addressee was absent does not automatically constitute deemed service; proper service is mandatory for cognizance (!) (!) . - The cause of action for the cheque dishonour arose in Orissa (Balasore/Bhubaneswar), making the Daman (Uttaranchal) proceeding not maintainable; the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging such proceedings under Article 226 (!) (!) (!) .

What is the validity of filing a Section 138 NI Act complaint by a Power of Attorney holder of a company against the petitioner? [p_6]

What is the mandatory requirement of service of notice under Section 138(b) & (c) of the NI Act, and is a returned unserved notice due to absence deemed service? [p_12][p_13]

What is this Court's jurisdiction to interfere with or quash proceedings initiated at a distant forum (Daman, Uttaranchal) when the cause of action arises in Orissa, and whether Article 226 relief is maintainable? [p_8][p_15][p_16]