https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409581 In cheque-dishonour prosecutions by a company, a complaint need not be filed only by a director or principal officer; it may be instituted through an authorised employee or other competent representative if the authority can be traced to a board resolution or similar mandate, so the complaints were not quashed for want of proper authorisation. Alleged insufficiency of court fee also did not justify outright rejection at the threshold, because a fee deficit is curable and an opportunity to make good the deficiency must be given. On territorial jurisdiction, the Panposh court was not the proper forum, so the complaints were to be withdrawn and presented before the competent Magistrate at Barbil. en-us Wed, 07 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:01:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409581 In cheque-dishonour prosecutions by a company, a complaint need not be filed only by a director or principal officer; it may be instituted through an authorised employee or other competent representative if the authority can be traced to a board resolution or similar mandate, so the complaints were not quashed for want of proper authorisation. Alleged insufficiency of court fee also did not justify outright rejection at the threshold, because a fee deficit is curable and an opportunity to make good the deficiency must be given. On territorial jurisdiction, the Panposh court was not the proper forum, so the complaints were to be withdrawn and presented before the competent Magistrate at Barbil. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409581