Court upholds complaints filed by authorized person for company, rejects jurisdiction and fee arguments. Dismisses spelling discrepancy.

The court upheld the validity of the complaints filed by an authorized person on behalf of the company. It rejected arguments on insufficient court fees and jurisdiction, directing refiling before the JMFC, Barbil. The issue of spelling discrepancy was dismissed. All criminal revisions were disposed of with directions for refiling within the prescribed period.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the complainant to file the case.
2. Payment of proper court fees.
3. Jurisdiction of the court to try the case.
4. Authorization to file the complaint on behalf of the company.
5. Spelling discrepancy in the name of the company.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Complainant to File the Case:
The petitioners argued that the complaint was not filed by an authorized person as required under Section 142 of the N.I. Act. They contended that the Deputy In-charge or Senior Clerk lacked statutory power under Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1961, to file the complaint. However, the opposite party countered that the Deputy In-charge was authorized by a resolution passed by the Board of Directors. The court referred to several precedents, including Vishwa Mitter v. O.P. Poddar and National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), which clarified that a complaint can be filed on behalf of a company by any authorized person, including an employee or a non-employee authorized by a resolution or power of attorney. The court concluded that the complaint was validly filed by an authorized person.

2. Payment of Proper Court Fees:
The petitioners argued that the complaints should be dismissed due to non-payment of proper court fees as per the Odisha Amendment to the Court Fees Act. The court held that the Court Fees Act is a taxing statute and insufficient court fees should not defeat a cause of action. The court cited the Privy Council's decision in Rachappa Subrao Jadhav v. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhav, which emphasized that the Court Fees Act aims to secure revenue for the state and not to arm litigants with technicalities. The court concluded that the complaints should not be dismissed for insufficient court fees without giving the complainant a reasonable opportunity to pay the deficit.

3. Jurisdiction of the Court to Try the Case:
The petitioners contended that the SDJM, Panposh, lacked jurisdiction as the cheques were dishonored by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Barbil Branch. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the place where the cheque is dishonored determines the jurisdiction. The court noted that the complaints were filed before the Supreme Court's decision, which applies prospectively. Therefore, the court directed that the complaints be refiled before the JMFC, Barbil, who has jurisdiction.

4. Authorization to File the Complaint on Behalf of the Company:
The court examined the authorization issue and found that the complaints were filed by an employee authorized by a Board of Directors' resolution. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand and Samrat Shipping Co. (P) Ltd. v. Dolly George, which clarified that a company can rectify any initial lack of authorization at any stage. The court concluded that the complaints were validly filed and any dispute regarding authorization could be addressed during the trial.

5. Spelling Discrepancy in the Name of the Company:
The petitioners pointed out a spelling difference in the name of the company. The court dismissed this argument, considering it a minor clerical error with no substantial impact on the case.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the validity of the complaints filed by an authorized person on behalf of the company. It rejected the arguments regarding insufficient court fees and jurisdiction, directing the complaints to be refiled before the JMFC, Barbil. The court also dismissed the issue of spelling discrepancy as inconsequential. All criminal revisions were disposed of with directions for the complainant to refile the complaints within the prescribed period.

---