Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.65 seconds)
Documents citing Hamsa vs Ibrahim on 26 August, 1993

Dr. Pradeep Mohanbay vs Minguel Carlos Dias on 1 October, 1999

In Hamsa v. Ibrahim (supra), it has been held that a Power of Attorney of a payee or holder in due course can file complaint under Section 142 of the said Act in this case, a complaint was filed for an offence under Section 138 of the said Act, of which the Magistrate had taken cognizance and issued process. The petitioner therein invoked inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint. The argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner therein was that the Power of Attorney holder of the payee has no locus standi to file a complaint under Section 138 of the said Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 39 - R K Batta - Full Document

Y.Vijayalakshmi @ Rambha vs Manickam Narayanan on 8 June, 2005

Thus, according to the general law, there is no locus standi for setting the criminal law in motion as was held by K.T.Thomas, J. in Hamsa's case (I (1994) BC 314). Since N.I.Act does not require the act to be done by holder in due course or payee, Section 2 of Powers of Attorney Act can override the rule made in N.I.Act and that therefore, GPA can file a complaint; it is not as though, total strangers, not contemplated under Section 142(a) of N.I.Act had initiated complaints. Thus, general law is that there is no specific locus standi for setting the criminal law in motion for act viz., N.I. Act provides that a complaint should be in writing by payee or holder in due course. But, in so long as that act is not personal act by payee and holder in due course according to principle laid down by K.T.Thomas, J. in Hamsa's case, Section 2 of Powers of Attorney Act can override N.I.Act. Therefore, GPA can file.
Madras High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 12 - S R Singharavelu - Full Document

Dr. Anil Kumar Haritwal And Others vs Sant Prakash Gupta And Others on 22 March, 2001

21. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on 1994 Vol. (I) 314 Banking Cases (Kerala High Court) in the case of Hamsa Vs. Ibrahim, in which the respondent signed the complaint as power of attorney holder of complainant and the Magistrate took cognizance of offence. The High Court held that there is no illegality. The payee or holder in due course of a cheque can file a complaint in Court under Section 142 of N.I. Act through his power of attorney holder.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

G.J. Packaging Private Ltd. And Anr. vs S.S. Sales And Anr. on 27 September, 2005

10. Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 empowers a donee of power of attorney to do anything in and with his own name and signature by the authority of the donor of the power of attorney. By virtue of this section, anything so done by the power of attorney has to be regarded as done by the donee of the power of attorney in the name and with the signature of the donor thereof. Having regard to this well settled position, question which arises for consideration is whether power of attorney can file a complaint on behalf of payee or holder in due course. Section 142 does not lay down that the complaint has to be filed by the payee or holder in due course personally. To import such a restriction would not be in consonance with the object of the legislation. Similar view is taken by Kerala High Court in the matter of Hamsa v. Ibrahim.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Jimmy Jahangir Madan vs Bolly Cariyappa Hindley By L.Rs on 10 August, 2001

Thus the Madras High Court in M/s. Ruby Leather Exports case, supra, and Kerala High Court in Hamsa's case, supra, have in fact permitted even a power of attorney or his agent to file the complaint under Section 142(a) of the N.I. Act and there is no restriction or bar for the Magistrate to take cognizance upon such presentation. This is insofar as taking cognizance of an offence on presentation not necessarily by the person named therein in the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - H N Narayan - Full Document
1   2 Next