Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
material on record, we find that admittedly authorisation by the
Board of Directors of the appellant-Federation was not placed
before the Courts below. But, we may notice that a specific
averment was made by the appellant-Federation before the learned
Judicial Magistrate that the said General Power of Attorney has
been filed in connected case being CC No. 1409/1995, which has
neither been denied nor disputed by the respondents. In any case,
in our opinion, if the Courts below were not satisfied, an
opportunity ought to have been granted to the appellant-Federation
to place the document containing authorisation on record and prove
the same in accordance with law. This is so because procedural
defects and irregularities, which are curable, should -
12. not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice.
Procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to
deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive
use. {See Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75}.
Supreme Court of India
M/S Haryana State Coop Spy & Mkt Fed ... vs M/S Jayam Textiles & Anr on 7 April, 2014
Bench: P Sathasivam, Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Citation;2014(5) MHLJ 249
2. The present appeals have been filed against the judgment dated
18.06.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.
A. Nos. 348 and 410 of 2001 thereby dismissing the said appeals on
the ground that Mr. Davinder Kumar Lal, claiming to be the power of
attorney holder of the appellant-Federation, has no locus standi to
file the complaints/appeals as he has failed to prove that the
Appellant-Federation had authorised him to file the same.
3. The facts of the two appeals are – the appellant-Federation
supplied cotton bales to the respondents of the value of
Rs.30,45,602/- vide three invoices dated 19.12.1994, 21.12.1994 and
20.01.1995. The respondents, to discharge their liability, issued
in total four cheques – two cheques for Rs.5 lakhs each dated
16.01.1995 and 20.01.1995 respectively and two -
4. cheques for Rs. 11 lakhs each dated 20.01.1995 and 25.01.1995
respectively. However, on presentation, all the said four cheques
were returned unpaid by the bank with an endorsement ‘for want of
sufficient funds’. The appellant-Federation sent legal notice(s)
dated 19.04.1995 and 27.04.1995 under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’), which were duly
received by the respondents. On failure of the respondents to pay
the amount within the stipulated time of 15 days from the date of
receipt of the notice, the appellant-Federation filed complaints
under Section 138 and 140 of the N.I. Act read with Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the I.P.C.’) against the
respondents. The said complaints were dismissed by the Judicial
Magistrate vide order dated 07.02.2001 and the appeals filed
against the said order were dismissed vide impugned judgment dated
18.06.2007, solely on the ground that the ‘authorisation’ was not
produced by the complainant-appellant.
5. -
6. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant-Federation that in
fact there was an authorisation from the Board of Directors of the
Federation, but unfortunately, the same was not filed along with
the complaint and on account of this reason only, the complaint was
dismissed, and as a matter of record, the said authorisation
delegating powers was passed in the meeting of the Federation on
15th April, 1976 and an opportunity to the appellant-Federation
could have been afforded by the Courts below to furnish the
authorisation, particularly when the appellant-Federation is a
Public Sector Undertaking and money which has to be paid by the
respondents is public money. In support of his submission, learned
counsel has drawn our attention to Annexure–P/7, the extracts of
the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Federation held on
15.04.1976, which are in the following terms:
“14 DELEGATION OF POWERS
The Board of Directors of the Haryana State Co-operative Supply
and Marketing -
Federation in their meeting held on 15.4.1976 resolved to delegate
the following powers to the authorities mentioned against each and to
the extent indicated as under.
Delegation of Powers to various officers of the Federation.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Nature of Powers Authority to whom Extent of powers
No. delegated
1 2 3 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
A) Administration
1 to 23 xx xx xx
24. Institution and defence
of legal proceeding etc.
i) To institute, conduct, M.D. Full Power
defend, compromise,
refer to arbitration and abandon
legal or other proceedings
and claims and also to file
appeals, revisions, review
petitions and executing by
and against the Federation
and also to engage lawyers
for that purpose from time
to time.
ii) To give general power of M.D. Full Power
attorney to any person /
officer for conducting the
cases in Courts etc.
B) Financial Administration
25 o Category B xx xx xx”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Federation further submitted that
it is in pursuance of the above-said delegation of powers to the
Managing -
8. Director, the general power of attorney in question was executed by
him authorising Mr. Davinder Kumar Lal to take civil and criminal
action against the defaulters including the respondents herein. He,
therefore, prayed to remit back the matter to the Trial Court with
a direction to consider the whole issue taking into consideration
the authorisation delegating powers to the Managing Director as
passed by the appellant-Federation in its meeting held on 15th
April, 1976.
9. Learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
contended that several years have already been passed in the
litigation and despite sufficient opportunity has been granted by
the Courts below, the appellant-Federation has failed to produce
authorisation and hence there is no reason for this Court to
interfere at this stage. When the matter was listed before us on
11.03.2014, a specific query was, however, put to the learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondents as to whether the
respondents have paid the amounts which are due and payable to -
10. the appellant-Federation. It was submitted, on instructions, that,
in fact, arbitration had taken place and even the award had been
passed against the respondents, but the respondents have not
complied with the terms of the award so far.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
material on record, we find that admittedly authorisation by the
Board of Directors of the appellant-Federation was not placed
before the Courts below. But, we may notice that a specific
averment was made by the appellant-Federation before the learned
Judicial Magistrate that the said General Power of Attorney has
been filed in connected case being CC No. 1409/1995, which has
neither been denied nor disputed by the respondents. In any case,
in our opinion, if the Courts below were not satisfied, an
opportunity ought to have been granted to the appellant-Federation
to place the document containing authorisation on record and prove
the same in accordance with law. This is so because procedural
defects and irregularities, which are curable, should -
12. not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice.
Procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to
deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive
use. {See Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006)
1 SCC 75}.
13. In view of the fact that in spite of arbitration award against the
respondents, there was non-payment of amount by the respondents to
the appellant-Federation, and also in the light of authorisation
contained in Annexure–P/7, we are of the opinion that, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, an opportunity should be given to
the appellant-Federation to produce and prove the authorisation
before the Trial Court, more so, when money involved is public
money. We, therefore, set aside the judgments of the Courts below
and remit the matters back to the Trial Court with a direction to
conduct trial afresh taking into consideration the authorisation
placed before us and dispose of the -
14. matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
15. The appeals and the interlocutory applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
.............C.J.I.
(P. Sathasivam)
.................J.
(Ranjan Gogoi)
.................J.
(N.V. Ramana)
New Delhi;
April 07, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment