https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458390 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, technical objections to the complainant's description and the authority of the power of attorney holder did not justify quashing where the complaint specifically pleaded the company's collective decision, issuance of cheques through the authorised signatory, notice to the company and directors, and their role in the transaction. The omission of a word from the company name was treated as a curable misdescription, and questions about the power of attorney holder's personal knowledge and affidavit defects were held to be matters for trial and cross-examination, not threshold grounds to defeat cognizance. en-us Wed, 31 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:42:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458390 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, technical objections to the complainant's description and the authority of the power of attorney holder did not justify quashing where the complaint specifically pleaded the company's collective decision, issuance of cheques through the authorised signatory, notice to the company and directors, and their role in the transaction. The omission of a word from the company name was treated as a curable misdescription, and questions about the power of attorney holder's personal knowledge and affidavit defects were held to be matters for trial and cross-examination, not threshold grounds to defeat cognizance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 31 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458390