<?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>2005 (9) TMI 691 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298906</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need not be filed personally by the payee or holder in due course if it is instituted in their name by a duly authorised power of attorney holder. The analysis states that Section 142 requires a complaint in writing by the payee or holder in due course, but not personal presentation, and that agency principles permit an authorised agent to act where the act is not inherently personal. It further states that a power of attorney holder with personal knowledge of the transaction may verify the complaint and have his statement recorded for verification, and that the process order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2021 17:37:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 691 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298906</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need not be filed personally by the payee or holder in due course if it is instituted in their name by a duly authorised power of attorney holder. The analysis states that Section 142 requires a complaint in writing by the payee or holder in due course, but not personal presentation, and that agency principles permit an authorised agent to act where the act is not inherently personal. It further states that a power of attorney holder with personal knowledge of the transaction may verify the complaint and have his statement recorded for verification, and that the process order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>