Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Eita India Ltd. vs National Capital Territory Of Delhi And ... on 12 February, 2002

Hpm Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd vs Hira Lal on 26 November, 2018

In the case of Eita India Ltd. v. National Capital Territory of Delhi [96 (2002) DLT 664], it was held that "7. In this case as noticed above the cheques in question were issued in the name of the sole proprietorship concern M/s. East India Transport Agency(EITA). The proprietorship concern could act only through its proprietor which happens to be the company. It is a de jure complainant; and it had to act through some human agency. Thus the complaint could be filed by any person connected with the company, may be its director or manager or any other person, so authorised by the company, who can represent the company in legal proceedings. Any other view would defeat the purpose and object of the Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cc Ni Act No.7888Of 2021 M/S Cico ... vs . Six Season Concertex Pvt. Ltd. Page No. ... on 16 December, 2022

On this point, reference can also be drawn from Eita India Pvt. Ltd. v NCT of Delhi (2003) 114 Comp Cas.32(Del.) wherein it was held that­ "... the conspectus of judicial opinion establishes a principle that complaint in respect of the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Act need not be personally filed by the payer or holder in due course. It can be filed by a natural person to act as defacto complainant..."
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cc No.8477/2021 Safe Towers Pvt.Ltd. vs . D N Bhagat Page No.1 on 24 January, 2023

2023.01.24 16:17:29 +0530 CC No.8477/2021 Safe Towers Pvt.Ltd. vs. D N Bhagat Page No.18 pursue this complaint which has been denied by CW­1. Though, CW­1 admitted that he has not filed any document on record, which has been signed by both the directors of Complainant company, however, non­filing of such document becomes irrelevant in view of the admission of the accused that he has done entire dealing and communication with one of the Director of complainant company namely Mr. Satender and he had given the cheque in question to the said Director. Thus, the AR for the complainant Mr. Kamal Sharma, has satisfied the criteria prescribed by Section 142 of NI Act to establish his authority for filing this complaint, as per which the complaint has to be made in writing by manager/authorized person on behalf of the payee / holder in due course i.e. Mr. Satender Kumar, who is one of the director of the complainant company. On this point reference can also be drawn from Eita India Pvt. Ltd. vs. NCT of Delhi (2003) 114 Comp Cas.32(Del.), wherein it was held that­ "... the conspectus of judicial opinion establishes a principle that complaint in respect of the offence punishable U/s 138 of the Act need not be personally filed by the payer or holder in due course. It can be filed by a natural person to act as defacto complainant..."
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

"...15. In Suresh Chandra Goyal vs . Amit Singhal, Crl. on 22 April, 2023

17. On this point, reference can also be drawn from Eita India Pvt. Ltd. v NCT of Delhi (2003) 114 Comp Cas.32(Del.) wherein it was held that­ "... the conspectus of judicial opinion establishes a principle that complaint in respect of the offence punishable U/S 138 of the Act need not be personally filed by the payer or holder in due course. It can be filed by a natural person to act as defacto complainant..."
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next