Authorization for society to file Section 142 complaint denied where no board resolution; post hoc appointment did not cure defect.

A registered society must prosecute a Section 142 complaint only through a person authorised by a valid board resolution, power of attorney or equivalent authority; absence of such authorisation renders the complaint not in accordance with the statute and therefore not maintainable. The court held that the complaint filed by an individual on behalf of the society without any valid board resolution or authorising instrument was fundamentally defective. The subsequent production of an appointment order or post facto document did not cure that fundamental defect, and the applications were dismissed for want of valid authorisation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint filed by the Society through Shri Nikhil Desai without a board resolution or other valid authorization was maintainable under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and whether subsequent production of an order dated 13.11.2009 curing appointment/authorization would cure the defect.

Analysis: The Court examined the requirement that a corporate or registered society must act by persons authorised by a valid power, authority or resolution when filing a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Reliance was placed on precedent establishing that absence of a power of attorney, board resolution or other valid authorization renders a complaint not in accordance with Section 142 and therefore not maintainable. The Court considered the explanation for non-production of the appointment order and precedent on whether production of post-facto documents can cure fundamental defects concerning authorization. The Court found that the complaint was filed by Shri Nikhil Desai on behalf of the Society without any resolution authorising him to lodge the complaint, and that this absence of a board resolution or valid authorization is a fundamental defect which could not be cured by subsequently producing the appointment order.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for want of a valid authorization or board resolution in favour of the person who lodged the complaint; subsequent production of the appointment order did not cure the fundamental defect. The applications are dismissed.

---