Madras High Court
A. Krishnan Prop. Kodeeswara Traders ... vs S.P. Kumar, Manager, Vangili Feeds, ... on 12 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: [2001]106COMPCAS694(MAD), 2001CRILJ3494
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam
ORDER
1. The above petition was dismissed on merits on 7.12.2000. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent when he was called on two occasions, this Court was constrained to dispose of the main petilion after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Some months later, the counsel for the petitioner would request this Court to post the matter for 'Being Mentioned' , as he can be given an opportunity to make submissions on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the prayer for quashing the proceedings in question. Accordingly, he was permitted. The Registry was directed to post this matter for 'Being Mentioned' .
3. Mr. Jyothi, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue at length, contending the following points:-
i) Under Section 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the payee is defined as the person named in the instrument, to whom or to whose order the money is by the instrument directed to be paid, is called the "payee". In this case, payee is the Company in whose name the instrument was drawn. But the complaint was filed by one S.P.Kumar, the Manager, as the Power Agent for the Company. Under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. the complaint can be filed only by the payee. Therefore, the complaint is not valid.
ii) The cause title in the complaint would show that the Manger of the Company is the complainant. In the absence of any complaint by the Company, the complaint by the Manager cannot be entertained.
4. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would cite the following judgments:-
(i) B. Mahendra Jain v. C.K. Mohammed Ali, 1997 (2) L.W. (Cri.) 637 (ii) Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Crl.L.J. 254 (iii) M/s. Swastik Coalers Pvt. Ltd v. M/s.Deepak Brothers, 1997 Crl.L.J. 1942 (iv) M/s. Satish & Co. v. M/s. S.R. Traders, 1998 Crl.L.J. 419.
5. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and on going through the judgments referred to above by him, I am of the view that the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner could not be countenance.
6. I have specifically observed in my order dated 7.12.2000 that the complaint had been filed on behalf of the Company by the representative of the Company, Mr.S.P.Kumar, who happens to be the Manager of the Company, as he has got some connection with the affairs of the Company, by virtue of his designation.
7. Furthermore, it is an admitted case that both in the complaint and the sworn statement, he has mentioned that the complaint was filed by him in the capacity of power of attorney given by the Company to him to file the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on behalf of the Company. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the payee is not the complainant. There is no dispute in the fact that the Company is the payee as defined under Section 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
8. A reading of the cause title, body of the complaint and the sworn statement would make it clear chat the complaint was filed by the Power of Attorney on behalf of the Company, the payee.
9. In M/s. Satish & Co. v. M/s. S.K. Traders, 1998 Crl.L.J. 419. the Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows:-
"a duly authorised agent can file a complaint on behalf of the Corporation since the Corporations are only inanimate legal persons, who necessarily have to act through such authorised persons. A complaint can be filed by the payee or by the holder in due course or by their duly authorised officer.
This decision, in my view, would not help in any way the petitioner herein.
10. Again the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s. Swastik Coaters Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Deepak Brothers, 1997 Crl.L.J. 1942 held as follows:-
"A complaint can be filed by the Director of the Company on behalf of the Company on the basis of the authorisation. This also would show that the payee can be represented through some other persons viz. Director and Manager with authorisation.
In this case, admittedly, the Manager has filed the complaint on behalf of the Company with the Power of Attorney.
11. As a matter of fact, this Court in M/s Gopalakrisha Trading Co. v. D.Baskaran, 1992 (1) MWN Crl 236, B. Mahendra Jain v. C.K.Mohemmed Ali, 1997 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 637 and Sahayadurai and others v. J.D.Electronics, 1991 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 297 held as follows:-
"The complaint presenled by the Manager representing the Company is very well connect with the affairs of the Company on whose behalf the complaint was made is perfectly valid and that it cannot be stated that the Manager representing the Company shall obtain a special permission or authorisation from the Company did file it along with the complaint.
12. But this view of this Court has not been accepted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Satish and Co. v. M/s.S.R.Traders, 1998 Crl.LJ. 419.
In that decision, it has been held as follows:-
"Even if the Manager filed a complaint on behalf of the Company, the Manager has to obtain authorisation or Power of Attorney and then file it."
13. I am not agreeable with this view, as the law laid down by this Court earlier in M/s. Gopalaksishma Trading Co. v. D.Baskaran, 1992 (1) M.W.N.236 is correct.
14. However, in the present case, the complaint has been filed on behalf of the Company not only as a Manager, but also on the authorisation given by both the Managing Partner and the Partner of the Company through the registered Power of Attorney.
15. Under those circumstances, the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would fait. Accordingly, the order dismissing the petition dated 7.12.2000 is confirmed. Thus, the petition for quashing the proceedings is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on the trial and finish the same expeditiously.