Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)Section 135 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of Travancore vs M/S Kingston Computers(I) P.Ltd on 22 February, 2011
15. As per recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers (I)
P.Ltd. III (2011) SLT 53, the letter of authority issued by the C.E.O of
the company, was nothing but a scrap of paper. Such an authority is
not recognized under law, as such complaint was not instituted by an
authorized person. The present complaint was filed by Sh.C.B.
Sharma stated to be authorized representative of company but later
on, other authorized representative were substituted to pursue this
complaint. The minutes of the board authorizing Sh. Arun Kanchan
C.E.O of the company to authorize any of the officer of the company
to file or represent the complaint were not proved by the company.
Most importantly, Sh.C.B.Sharma, officer of the company, who had
filed this complaint and mentioned in the list of witnesses was not
examined in the court either, so the complaint Ex.CW-1/B remains
unproved on record.