1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Complaint by Power of Attorney Holder Invalid; Notice Service Deemed Invalid; Jurisdiction Ruling in Writ Petition</h1> The court found the complaint filed by the Power of Attorney Holder to be invalid as the Principal Officer cannot re-delegate his power. Additionally, the ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the complaint filed by the Power of Attorney Holder.2. Validity of notice service u/s 138 of the N.I. Act.3. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the writ petition.Summary:Issue 1: Legality of the Complaint by Power of Attorney HolderThe first point addressed whether the opposite party No. 1, based on a Power of Attorney dated 2.6.2003, could file a criminal complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. The petitioner argued that the Managing Director of the company, who is the Principal Officer, cannot re-delegate his power to file such complaints. The court noted that the Principal Officer cannot re-delegate his power to a subordinate, making the complaint filed by the Power of Attorney Holder invalid.Issue 2: Validity of Notice Service u/s 138 of the N.I. ActThe second issue was whether the notice, which was returned unserved, could constitute an offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner contended that the notice was not served as required by law. The court emphasized that for an offence u/s 138 to be constituted, the notice must be served upon the addressee. The court found that the notice was sent to an incorrect address and returned unserved, thus failing to meet the mandatory requirement of service of notice u/s 138(b) of the N.I. Act. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daman, was deemed illegal.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the CourtThe third issue was whether the High Court of Orissa had jurisdiction to interfere with the complaint lodged at Daman. The court noted that since the cheque was issued at Balasore and dishonoured at Bhubaneswar, the cause of action arose in the State of Orissa. Therefore, the institution of the complaint at Daman was not maintainable. The court held that the writ petition filed in the High Court of Orissa was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Conclusion:The writ petition was allowed, and the proceedings initiated by opposite party No. 1 at Daman were quashed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
