1998 (10) TMI 541 - HC - Indian Laws

Company Representative's Complaint Filing Authorization: Bombay HC Emphasizes Proof

M/s. Credential Financial Ltd. Versus State Of Maharashtra & Others

The Bombay High Court, through Justice N.J. Pandya, ruled on the issue of authorization to file a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable ... - Issues:- Authorization to file a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act- Requirement of authorization for lodging a complaint by a company- Legal implications of filing a complaint through an authorized representative- Precedents regarding authorization to file complaints on behalf of companiesAnalysis:The judgment by N.J. Pandya, J. of the Bombay High Court revolves around the issue of authorization to file a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, filed a complaint through its Manager, Mr. R. Srinivasan, against the respondent. The respondent raised a plea that the complaint was unauthorized, leading to its dismissal by the Magistrate. The key contention was the lack of explicit authorization in the complaint or accompanying documents regarding Mr. Srinivasan's authority to lodge the complaint on behalf of the company.The court analyzed the legal requirements under section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing that only a payee or a holder in due course can file a complaint. While the complainant company fulfilled the payee criteria, the issue centered on the authority of Mr. Srinivasan to represent the company in filing the complaint. The court highlighted the importance of establishing authorization, especially when a complaint is filed through a company official, such as a Manager or Managing Director.Various precedents were cited to support both parties' arguments. The court referenced cases where complaints filed by authorized representatives were upheld, emphasizing the need for clear authorization when initiating legal proceedings on behalf of a company. The judgment underscored that the absence of explicit authorization should be subject to proof during trial rather than serving as a ground for immediate dismissal of the complaint.Ultimately, the court held that the Magistrate's order of dismissing the complaint based on the lack of authorization was unsustainable. The petition was allowed, setting aside the trial court's order and restoring the complaint for further proceedings. The judgment reiterated that the issue of authorization should be examined in the context of proof during the trial rather than as a basis for summary dismissal, aligning with established legal principles regarding representation and authority in legal proceedings.