Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Ranjitha Balasubramanian And Anr. vs Shanthi Group And Ors. on 12 December, 2006

Reliance Capital Ltd vs Sudhir Kumar Batra on 13 April, 2011

6. Counsel for the accused has relied on the case laws; HDFC Bank v. Amit Kumar Singh 160 (2009) DLT 478; Ranjitha Balasubramaniam v. Shanthi Group, Bangalore 2007(2), CCC 362 (Karnataka); Anna Saheb Chougule Urban Cooperative Bank v. Narayana Pandu Rang Khargaonkar 2009 (2) CCC 098 ( Bombay); Industrial Stores Trading Company represented by its power agent R. Sekar v. Professional Circuit Boards Ltd., Chennai 2007 (3) JCC (NI) 279.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahindra And Mahindra Financial ... vs Vinay Kumar K on 7 March, 2024

16. If the principles held in the above decision are applied to the case on hand, similar is the situation in the case on hand as even in this case the person who filed the complaint i.e., Naveen has not produced power of attorney. Though a zerox copy of the same is filed to the court, same cannot be considered as a document by this court as same is not having any legal sanctity in the eyes of law. In the absence of such authority, his sworn statement has been recorded and summons was issued to the accused. As it is clear that the said Naveen who filed the complaint had no authority to present the complaint, the complaint on hand is liable to be dismissed. In other words, this Court is of the view that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and such defect is an incurable SCCH­14 11 CC.No.3420/2020 defect. Mere examining the other respective power of attorney holder at a subsequent stage of the proceedings cannot cure the defect. Hence, with all these observations, I proceed to answer Point No.1 in the 'Negative'.
Bangalore District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1