Supreme Court: The court should not dismiss criminal complaint U/S 138 of NI Act at the threshold only on the ground that complainant was not authorized to file complaint?

 A Company can file a complaint only through human agency. The person who presented the complaint on behalf of the Company claimed that he is the authorised representative of the company. Prima facie, the trial court should have accepted it at the time when a complaint was presented. If it is a matter of evidence when the accused disputed the authority of the said individual to present the complaint, opportunity should have been given to the complainant to prove the same, but that opportunity need be given only when the trial commences. The dismissal of the complaint at the threshold on the premise that the individual has not produced certified copy of the resolution appears to be too hasty an action.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 1999.

Decided On: 10.12.1999

Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dolly George

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.T. Thomas and M.B. Shah, JJ.

Author: K.T. Thomas, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1300/1999,(2002) 9 SCC 455.

Print Page

Whether Suit can be filed by partnership firm through authorized representative?

 As far as authority of Mr.Shiv Prasad Shukla to file the suit is concerned, the Plaintiff has placed reliance upon the Authority Letter dated 5th May, 2010 which is signed by all the partners of the Plaintiff. The said authority has been verified in original by the Notary Public and an endorsement has been made by the Notary Public in this behalf in the plaint as well as affidavit while attesting the signature of Mr.Shiv Prasad Shukla. In my view, there is no substance in the plea raised by the Defendant that the plaint has not been filed by the authorised person. The Letter of Authority which has been filed alongwith the plaint indicates that all the partners of the Plaintiff have authorised Mr.Shiv Prasad Shukla to engage, to appoint an advocate, to sign vakalatnama, plaint, reply, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder, Summons for Judgment etc.

Bombay High Court

M/S. Bombay Trading Co. vs M/S. Jai Santoshi Maa Enterprises on 31 August, 2012

Bench: R.D. Dhanuka

Print Page