NCLAT: Corporate Debtor’s Guarantor Liability Unchanged Despite Internal Adjustments Among Creditors  ||  NCLAT: Plea under IBC Section 7 Can't Be Restored After Corporate Debtor Pays Principal & Interest  ||  Delhi HC: Wife Can Be Denied Maintenance If She Fails To Submit Latest Salary Slips  ||  Kerala HC: Income of Parent Who Abandoned Family Shouldn’t Count For EWS Reservation Eligibility  ||  Gujarat HC: Writ Courts Interfering in Arbitral Procedure Orders Defies A&C Act’s Purpose  ||  Delhi HC: Plaintiff Doesn’t Have Vested Right to File Rejoinder under CPC  ||  J&K&L HC: Name Change Is Fundamental Right; Boards Must Consider Legal Documents, Not Reject Request  ||  SC: Administrative Delays by State Agencies Must Not Be Condoned  ||  Sc: When Sale Deed Is Void, Possession Suit Follows 12-Year Limitation under Article 65, Not Art 59  ||  SC: Preliminary Inquiry Report Can’t Stop Court from Directing FIR Registration    

Lalit Narayan Thakkar Vs. Narendra Gajanan Sharma (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:6882) - (High Court of Bombay) (01 Apr 2024)

A valid authorization is necessary to institute a complaint under the NI Act

MANU/MH/2121/2024

Criminal

In present case, judgment and order passed by trial Court acquitting Respondent from offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the NI Act) is assailed by original complainant by filing instant appeal.

Complainant is expected to prove beyond reasonable doubt essential ingredients like existence of legally enforceable debt, secondly issuance of cheque, thirdly, dishonour of cheque and fourthly, issuance of statutory demand notice. There is further requirement that repayment of cheque is to be made within stipulated period, failing which accused is exposed to the risk of initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Apparently, there is no valid authorization in favour of PW1 Lalit to institute complaint on behalf of complainant Co-operative Society i.e. Agresen Urban Co-operative Credit Society. Therefore, when PW1 Lalit was not legally authorized or equipped with effective Resolution to prosecute, prosecution itself fails for want of sanction and authorization.

There has to be a valid authorization with a person prosecuting the complaint under the NI Act. Cross-examination of PW1 Lalit categorical shows that, though Resolution has been passed, it has not been endorsed and confirmed by causing signature. Hence, no fault can be found in the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court for dismissing the summary criminal case. No case being made out on merits. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : COMPLAINT   DISMISSAL   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved