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 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed in the name of a company and represented by a director without an express board resolution or power of attorney are competent and the complaints are maintainable.
Analysis: The Court examined the statutory scheme under Sections 138, 141 and 142(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and noted that a company, as a legal person, can be the payee or holder in due course and must act through human agency to prefer a complaint. The judgment considered precedents holding that a director or manager must have express authorisation to file complaints on behalf of a company, but contrasted those with prior decisions recognising that a person who is connected with the affairs of the company (for example a director or manager whose actions bind the company) may represent the company without separate written authorisation. Section 141 was analysed by analogy to identify persons whose actions bind the company. The facts showed the director who presented the complaints was the person through whom the company transacted and received the cheques; his actions were therefore binding on the company and sufficient to represent the company for the purpose of preferring complaints under Section 142(a).
Conclusion: The complaints filed in the name of the company and represented by its director without an express board resolution or power of attorney are valid and maintainable; the petitions seeking quashal are dismissed.
TaxTMI 
