<?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>Company director files cheque bounce complaint individually without authorization, revision allowed under Section 138</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89766</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the revision application in a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant, a company director, filed the complaint in his individual capacity without proper authorization or power of attorney from the company. The agreement was executed between two companies, requiring the complainant to represent the company rather than act personally. While lack of authorization constitutes a curable defect per Supreme Court precedent in M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals, the company failed to rectify this defect at any subsequent stage. The Court held that authorized persons must file complaints on behalf of and in the name of the principal, not in their personal capacity, making the complaint legally impermissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:23:50 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:23:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=831460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Company director files cheque bounce complaint individually without authorization, revision allowed under Section 138</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89766</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the revision application in a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant, a company director, filed the complaint in his individual capacity without proper authorization or power of attorney from the company. The agreement was executed between two companies, requiring the complainant to represent the company rather than act personally. While lack of authorization constitutes a curable defect per Supreme Court precedent in M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals, the company failed to rectify this defect at any subsequent stage. The Court held that authorized persons must file complaints on behalf of and in the name of the principal, not in their personal capacity, making the complaint legally impermissible.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:23:50 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>