<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (4) TMI 529 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199548</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be instituted through a duly authorised power of attorney holder where no statutory bar exists. The court noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes specific restrictions only for complaints under Sections 198, 198-A and 199, and does not generally prohibit filing complaints for offences under other laws through an authorised agent. Authorities cited against maintainability were distinguished on their facts and did not establish any rule that a power of attorney holder is incompetent to file such a complaint. The complaint was therefore maintainable and the objection to its institution was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2018 15:16:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 529 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199548</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be instituted through a duly authorised power of attorney holder where no statutory bar exists. The court noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes specific restrictions only for complaints under Sections 198, 198-A and 199, and does not generally prohibit filing complaints for offences under other laws through an authorised agent. Authorities cited against maintainability were distinguished on their facts and did not establish any rule that a power of attorney holder is incompetent to file such a complaint. The complaint was therefore maintainable and the objection to its institution was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>