2011 (1) TMI 1606

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....istered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The complaint was filed by Shri Nikhil Desai on behalf of the complainant-Society who was the complainant's Acting CEO. The complaint was filed for a dishonour of a cheque dated 2.11.2006 for Rs. 6,00,000/- which when presented for payment was returned dishonoured for lack of insufficient funds and a legal notice sent to the accused was not complied with by the accused. 3. As said, the complaint was filed by Shri Nikhil Desai on behalf of the complainant-Society. The said Nikhil Desai was then replaced by Shri Venancio Furtado who had deposed on behalf of the complainant. The said Venancio Furtado was the General Manager. 4. The learned trial Court, acquitted the accused, inter a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11.2009 was not produced under a bona fide belief that the same was not required before the Court to be produced in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Tarseema Compress Wood Manufacturing Co. and Others, 1 (1997) BC 555 : 1997(2) Bom. C.R. 267. Here, it may be stated that, in that case this Court had noted that PW1/N. R. Koramne who was the manager of the concerned Branch of the plaintiff-Bank had given evidence on the basis of the documents. It was therefore held that anybody could come and give evidence in Court provided that he is acquainted with the facts of the case. At the same time it was clearly stated that a power of attorney or authorization would be required for filing the plaint or signing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a) on which reliance was he learned trial Court it was observed that a complaint under Section 142 of the Act can be filed either by the payee or holder in due course. The complainant-Co-op. Society was the payee in that case and the complaint was filed in its name. The authority produced did not sufficiently authorize Shri G P. Shirodkar either to file the complaint or to depose in support thereof. The complainant was not sufficiently represented before the Court. Therefore, it could not be said that the complaint filed or the evidence given in support thereof was in accordance with Section 142 of the Act, which requires that the complaint has to be made by the payee or as the case may be, by the holder in due course of the cheque. In the ....