https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305077 The court dismissed the M. Cs. seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the notice issued by the power of attorney holder demanding payment within statutory limits was valid. The court clarified that the power of attorney holder can act on behalf of the payee under Section 27 of the Act for both civil and criminal liabilities. It emphasized that personal matters need not be disclosed by the principal for issuing notices, and past judgments supported the validity of complaints filed by authorized representatives. The court ruled that the question of personal knowledge and evidence would be addressed during the trial, not as a basis for quashing proceedings. en-us Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2022 12:03:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305077 The court dismissed the M. Cs. seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the notice issued by the power of attorney holder demanding payment within statutory limits was valid. The court clarified that the power of attorney holder can act on behalf of the payee under Section 27 of the Act for both civil and criminal liabilities. It emphasized that personal matters need not be disclosed by the principal for issuing notices, and past judgments supported the validity of complaints filed by authorized representatives. The court ruled that the question of personal knowledge and evidence would be addressed during the trial, not as a basis for quashing proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305077