TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: (i) whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the company through its authorised representative was maintainable when the power of attorney contained a specific clause permitting appointment of special attorneys; and (ii) whether the power of attorney holder was competent to depose on behalf of the company on the basis of personal knowledge of the transaction.
Issue (i): whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the company through its authorised representative was maintainable when the power of attorney contained a specific clause permitting appointment of special attorneys.
Analysis: The complaint was filed by the company in its own name through an authorised representative. The power of attorney, approved by the board, authorised the director to appoint counsels or special attorneys. On a combined reading of the relevant clauses, the authority to appoint special attorneys included the authority to engage an authorised representative for prosecution of the complaint. Since the power of attorney expressly permitted such sub-delegation, the filing of the complaint through the authorised representative was not illegal.
Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the objection to its institution failed.
Issue (ii): whether the power of attorney holder was competent to depose on behalf of the company on the basis of personal knowledge of the transaction.
Analysis: A power of attorney holder may depose and verify the complaint if he has knowledge of the transaction. The affidavit placed on record stated that the deponent was a director, was the general power of attorney holder, and was fully conversant with the facts. The High Court ignored this affidavit and proceeded only on the absence of such averment in the complaint. That approach was erroneous because the record disclosed due knowledge and competence to support the prosecution.
Conclusion: The power of attorney holder was competent to depose on behalf of the company.
Final Conclusion: The interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was unwarranted, and the orders of the trial court and revisional court restoring the complaint proceedings were sustained in law.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be instituted through an authorised representative where the power of attorney expressly permits such delegation, and a power of attorney holder with due knowledge of the transaction is competent to depose in support of the complaint.
TaxTMI 
