https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434309 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held maintainable where the company acted through an authorised representative and the power of attorney expressly permitted appointment of special attorneys, because that delegation covered engagement of the representative for prosecution. The Court also held that a power of attorney holder may depose and verify the complaint when he has knowledge of the transaction; an affidavit stating that the deponent was a director, general power of attorney holder, and fully conversant with the facts was sufficient. The High Court's contrary approach was found erroneous, and interference under Section 482 CrPC was unwarranted. en-us Mon, 20 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Feb 2023 15:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434309 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held maintainable where the company acted through an authorised representative and the power of attorney expressly permitted appointment of special attorneys, because that delegation covered engagement of the representative for prosecution. The Court also held that a power of attorney holder may depose and verify the complaint when he has knowledge of the transaction; an affidavit stating that the deponent was a director, general power of attorney holder, and fully conversant with the facts was sufficient. The High Court's contrary approach was found erroneous, and interference under Section 482 CrPC was unwarranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434309