MOHONLAL KHEMCHAND Vs. PAWAN KUMAR MOHANKA
LAWS(CAL)-1996-3-24
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 21,1996

MOHONLAL KHEMCHAND Appellant
VERSUS
PAWAN KUMAR MOHANKA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

P A VERGHESE VS. MAA COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-1997-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
C PRABHU VS. SANGAM CORPORATION BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2002-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK BAMPTO PAGUI VS. AGENCIA REAL CANACONA PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
JOSE P.P. VS. M.M.ABDULKHADER [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-234] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The revisional application arises out of an order dated 9-9-92 whereby the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta rejected the prayer of the accused petitioner for dropping of the proceeding in Case No. 111 of 1992 under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(2.)The complainant opposite party filed a complaint before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Section 138 N. I. Act alleging that he being the Manager of the share department of M/s. Albert Devid Ltd., was authorised to file a complaint. The complainant company supplied their products for which a sum of Rs. 1,35,808.25 was due up to 5-1-90 and receivable from accused No. 1 who issued a cheque but the said cheque was dis-honoured. Ultimately, accused No. 3 issued another cheque on 22-11-91 but the said cheque was also dis-honoured on 10-12-91. Two demand notices were served but no payment was made and as such the complaint was filed. Following issuance of process the petitioners appeared before the Ld. C.M.M., on 13-3-92 and were released on bail. Thereafter, they also filed an application for dropping of the case since the Manager was not the payee and he could not make the complaint in accordance with law. But the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate to whom the case was transferred rejected the prayer contained in the application. Accordingly, the revisional application has been filed stating that the complainant is neither the payee nor holder in due course and as such the complaint is bad.
(3.)The revisional application is being registered by the O.P.No. 1 alone namely, the complainant. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint under Section 138 N. I. Act. It is submitted that initiation of complaint by authorised agent is bad. It has been argued that the complaint has been filed by O.P. in his capacity as Manager to share department of M/s. Albert David Ltd. It has been argued that the complaint should have been filed by the company itself who is represented by the complainant. It is alleged that since this is not done, the complaint is bad.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.