<?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>2019 (6) TMI 1344 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382267</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may proceed through a power of attorney holder only if the complaint and affidavit disclose the holder&#039;s knowledge of the transaction and the complainant has valid, subsisting authority to prosecute. The court noted that process can issue on the basis of the complaint, supporting documents and affidavit evidence, but in this matter the complaints were founded on a claim that the complainant was a wakf, contrary to the record and an earlier judicial finding, and no material showed continuing authority from the alleged authorising chief mutawalli. The complaints were therefore not maintainable in their present form and the summoning orders were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 1344 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382267</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may proceed through a power of attorney holder only if the complaint and affidavit disclose the holder&#039;s knowledge of the transaction and the complainant has valid, subsisting authority to prosecute. The court noted that process can issue on the basis of the complaint, supporting documents and affidavit evidence, but in this matter the complaints were founded on a claim that the complainant was a wakf, contrary to the record and an earlier judicial finding, and no material showed continuing authority from the alleged authorising chief mutawalli. The complaints were therefore not maintainable in their present form and the summoning orders were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>