Skip to main content

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court.

"We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said.

The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner:

"Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal and competent."

It said the PoA holder can depose and verify on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint.

"However, the PoA holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the transactions," it added.

The PoA holder, however, cannot file the cheque bounce case under his own name and such cases can be filed by the complainants through the PoA holders.

Responding to another legal question raised in the reference by a two-judge bench, it said, "the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant ...".

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2007
A.C. Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.          OF 2013
Shri G. Kamalakar Vs M/s. Surana Securities Ltd. & Anr.

Article referred: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-15/news/42083670_1_cheque-bounce-case-section-138-holder

Comments

  1. Unknown9 July 2014 at 16:15

    Hi,
    Thanks for great Information of Cheque Bounce Case, cheque bounce is the most common things in financial at chargebackers.

    cheque bounce case

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more